Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God

[Peterlag]

If you can't show this personal assertion with Scripture, your OP is fatally flawed.

Because the Bible supplies its own definition for 'The Word' in the same chapter in question, the onus is on you to show where in the Bible it defines that otherwise.

Because the facts contradict your hypothesis, your hypothesis is falsified.

You have zero Biblical evidence to support the notion that 'The Word' means anything but Jesus Christ.

Therefore, it is then proven by Scripture that The Word refers to Jesus Christ.

Every Bible scholar knows that the word "Word" in John 1:1 means logos in the Greek. It does not mean Jesus Christ.

 

[GEN2REV]

Every Bible scholar knows that the word "Word" in John 1:1 means logos in the Greek. It does not mean Jesus Christ.

Oh really?

Not sure what your definition of scholar is, but I happen to be a Bible Scholar myself and I know for certain that the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as 'The Word'.

So does every honest student of the Bible I've ever come across.

 

[RLT63]

sn In the beginning. The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ‘beginning’ (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?” In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BDAG 138 s.v. ἀρχή 3 lists a major category of meaning as “the first cause.” For John, the words “In the beginning” are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis—“In the beginning.” Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John’s prologue: “life” (1:4) “light” (1:4) and “darkness” (1:5). Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John’s “spiritual” emphasis, the “physical” re-creation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.)
tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός…means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father. ( Notes from the NET Bible)

Verse 14
tn Grk “and tabernacled.”
sn The Greek word translated took up residence (σκηνόω, skēnoō) alludes to the OT tabernacle, where the Shekinah, the visible glory of God’s presence, resided. The author is suggesting that this glory can now be seen in Jesus (note the following verse). The verb used here may imply that the Shekinah glory that once was found in the tabernacle has taken up residence in the person of Jesus. Cf. also John 2:19-21. The Word became flesh. This verse constitutes the most concise statement of the incarnation in the New Testament. John 1:1 makes it clear that the Logos was fully God, but 1:14 makes it clear that he was also fully human. A Docetic interpretation is completely ruled out. Here for the first time the Logos of 1:1 is identified as Jesus of Nazareth—the two are one and the same. Thus this is the last time the word logos is used in the Fourth Gospel to refer to the second person of the Trinity. From here on it is Jesus of Nazareth who is the focus of John’s Gospel.

tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12; 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14; 1:18; 3:16, and 3:18)

 

[Peterlag]

Oh really?

Not sure what your definition of scholar is, but I happen to be a Bible Scholar myself and I know for certain that the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as 'The Word'.

So does every honest student of the Bible I've ever come across.

Identify Jesus Christ as the "Word" is a Catholic doctrine. And any good Scholar should know that. Here I will give you the history...

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[GEN2REV]

Identify Jesus Christ as the "Word" is a Catholic doctrine. And any good Scholar should know that. Here I will give you the history...

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.

How utterly ... ridiculous.

Jesus Christ being "The Word" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church.

It's just one preposterous claim after another with you guys.

If it wasn't for the sake of those who don't know any better, it wouldn't even be worth conversing with you.

 

[Peterlag]

How utterly ... ridiculous.

Jesus Christ being "The Word" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church.

It's just one preposterous claim after another with you guys.

If it wasn't for the sake of those who don't know any better, it wouldn't even be worth conversing with you.

Jesus never taught the Trinity even when he had good opportunities to do so, and we see this when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42) and told her he was the Messiah, but nothing more. Jesus did not take the opportunity to teach the Trinity when he asked the Apostles who they thought he was, and Peter said that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 16:17-20). Also he said he was the Messiah, but did not say a word about the Trinity when he healed the man who had been born blind (John 9:35-38). Trinitarians also commonly say that Jesus claimed to be God, and for that reason the Jews hated him and tried to kill him, but that is not the case because Jesus had been stating in various ways that he was the Messiah, and that is what the Jews were upset about. The Jews all throughout their history made a clear distinction between “God” and the “Messiah” and they did not think the Messiah was going to be God or a “Person” in a triune God.

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

 

[GEN2REV]

Jesus never taught the Trinity even when he had good opportunities to do so, and we see this when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42) and told her he was the Messiah, but nothing more. Jesus did not take the opportunity to teach the Trinity when he asked the Apostles who they thought he was, and Peter said that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 16:17-20). Also he said he was the Messiah, but did not say a word about the Trinity when he healed the man who had been born blind (John 9:35-38). Trinitarians also commonly say that Jesus claimed to be God, and for that reason the Jews hated him and tried to kill him, but that is not the case because Jesus had been stating in various ways that he was the Messiah, and that is what the Jews were upset about. The Jews all throughout their history made a clear distinction between “God” and the “Messiah” and they did not think the Messiah was going to be God or a “Person” in a triune God.

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

The topic of this thread, and our discussion, is whether or not "The Word" was Jesus Christ.

I have proven that to be affirmative enough so that you have changed tactics and started arguing a case against the trinity .... : .... which is neither here nor there.

 

[RLT63]

Jesus never taught the Trinity even when he had good opportunities to do so, and we see this when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42) and told her he was the Messiah, but nothing more. Jesus did not take the opportunity to teach the Trinity when he asked the Apostles who they thought he was, and Peter said that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 16:17-20). Also he said he was the Messiah, but did not say a word about the Trinity when he healed the man who had been born blind (John 9:35-38). Trinitarians also commonly say that Jesus claimed to be God, and for that reason the Jews hated him and tried to kill him, but that is not the case because Jesus had been stating in various ways that he was the Messiah, and that is what the Jews were upset about. The Jews all throughout their history made a clear distinction between “God” and the “Messiah” and they did not think the Messiah was going to be God or a “Person” in a triune God.

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God. But it was a threat for Jesus to claim to be the Messiah of God and also walk around doing miracles. Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

You are replying to someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity. He does believe that Jesus is God but not in the Trinity.

 

[Wrangler]

Every Bible scholar knows that the word "Word" in John 1:1 means logos in the Greek. It does not mean Jesus Christ.

Oh really?

Not sure what your definition of scholar is, but I happen to be a Bible Scholar myself and I know for certain that the Bible identifies Jesus Christ as 'The Word'.

Appeal to Diversion. I see what you did there! Pretend he is not talking about what John 1:1 actually says - logos. Out of nowhere assert something irrelevant to John 1:1.

Does your Bible say Jesus is a servant of God? Mine does. The only reason Jesus is called a servant of God is because he is not God. Calling Jesus ANY of God - son, servant, word, lamb - proves he is not God.

 

[GEN2REV]

Appeal to Diversion. I see what you did there! Pretend he is not talking about what John 1:1 actually says - logos. Out of nowhere assert something irrelevant to John 1:1.

Does your Bible say Jesus is a servant of God? Mine does. The only reason Jesus is called a servant of God is because he is not God. Calling Jesus ANY of God - son, servant, word, lamb - proves he is not God.

That's pretty flimsy.

If I take a cup of water from a barrel of it, does that make what's in the cup not water?

If I reach over the side of the boat with a bucket and pull it up filled with sea water, does that make what's in the bucket not sea water?

It's the same with the Spirit of God (John 4:24). Jesus is OF God. He was a servant OF God. He is The Word OF God. Does that make Him not God?

Of course not.

He is the same Spirit (water), He is the same as is His Source.

We, on the other hand, are not God just by having His Spirit indwell us because we all have a human father and mother.

 

[Peterlag]

The topic of this thread, and our discussion, is whether or not "The Word" was Jesus Christ.

I have proven that to be affirmative enough so that you have changed tactics and started arguing a case against the trinity .... : .... which is neither here nor there.

Oh wow you caught that. Well, I just thought I would throw in a little trinity stuff.

 

[Wrangler]

That's pretty flimsy.

It is as rock solid, certain as can be. Subjects of sentences are not objects of sentences.

If I take a cup of water from a barrel of it, does that make what's in the cup not water?

There you go again, pretending the container is the contents.

 

[GEN2REV]

There you go again, pretending the container is the contents.

You colored, emboldened AND enlarged the word "in" - referring to the contents of the container.

How could that mean the container?

 

[GEN2REV]

Oh wow you caught that. Well, I just thought I would throw in a little trinity stuff.

Yes, Wrangler.

I always catch it.

 

[Wrangler]

You colored, emboldened AND enlarged the word "in" - referring to the contents of the container.

How could that mean the container?

Jesus is the container, not the contents.

You added the word "in" to confuse the contents with the container. And you deny the significance of "of," Jesus is OF God. This proves he is not God.

 

[GEN2REV]

Jesus is the container, not the contents.

You added the word "in" to confuse the contents with the container. And you deny the significance of "of," Jesus is OF God. This proves he is not God.

You're a twisting, perverting MANIAC of anything and everything somebody posts.

'IN' is relevant because what is IN Jesus is His Spirit - which is God. John 4:24

Are you ONLY your flesh body? If that's what you believe, you are not a Christian in the least.

Are we not OUR SOUL?

Jesus WAS the container AND THE CONTENTS.

YOU are desperately struggling to make a case otherwise because it's the only way you can support your ridiculous notion that Jesus is not God - an idea that is obliterated by so much Scripture that it is embarrassing for those who cling to such absolute nonsense.

You remove and remove and alter and deny verse after verse after verse to support your position that is total hog wash.

Your humiliation is only soothed by your continued desperate attempts to hold up your position with one failed effort after another to present Scripture as supporting your sentiment.

You have lost this battle time after time after time. Your credibility here is tattered.

Jesus was the container AND the contents - and the contents were (and still are) God.

 

[GEN2REV]

@RLT63

Yes, it's not Soul Wrangler's first talking to.

It'd be great if it made a difference, but it never does.

He is employed here to silence Truth so he just goes right back to work without missing a beat.

God refers to his kind as unthinking brute beasts ... created for destruction.
2 Peter 2:12
Jude 1:10

Sad, but .... it is what it is.

 

[Wrangler]

You're a twisting, perverting MANIAC of anything and everything somebody posts.

'IN' is relevant because what is IN Jesus is His Spirit - which is God. John 4:24

No, I'm untwising trinitarian double speak. Calling Jesus ANY of God - son, servant, word, lamb - proves he is not God.

Rather than admit this aspect of Language Usage, you Appeal to Diversion - from Jesus and God to water and cups

If I take a cup of water from a barrel of it, does that make what's in the cup not water?

Prepositonal phrases - such as OF, in, on - relate objects to the subject of sentences. Jesus is OF God, which proves, he is not God. You just don't want to acknowledge the significance of such ubiquitious language usage in Scripture.

Yes, it's not Soul Wrangler's first talking to.
It'd be great if it made a difference, but it never does.

Ouch

 

[RLT63]

No, I'm untwising trinitarian double speak. Calling Jesus ANY of God - son, servant, word, lamb - proves he is not God.

Rather than admit this aspect of Language Usage, you Appeal to Diversion - to water and cups



Prepositonal phrases - such as OF, in, on - relate objects to the subject of sentences. Jesus is OF God, which proves, he is not God. You just don't want to acknowledge the significance of such ubiquitious language usage in Scripture.


Ouch

Wrangler said "No, I'm untwising trinitarian double speak."

But you're not responding to a Trinitarian.

 

[Wrangler]

Wrangler said "No, I'm untwising trinitarian double speak."

But you're not responding to a Trinitarian.

Yes, I should have used the principle that both he and trinitarians rest, mystical dualism. @GEN2REV applies this princinple to 2-in-1 Being, whereas trinitarians apply this principle to a 3-in-1 Being.