Is GJohn 1.1,2 blasphemous? Sorry but this is too long for most of you.

[KUWN]

Without any introduction, here are the words the Apostle John chose to begin his gospel:
EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS
Roughly translated: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John realized the staggering implications of his opening verse, so much so, that he virtually repeats himself in the very next verse:
hOUTOS HN EN ARCHi PROS TON QEON
Translated: “This one was in the beginning with God.”
As you can see, this verse seems painfully redundant. But now the reader must stop. The perceptive reader of the first century most assuredly would be in total shock after only partially grasping the implications of this dynamic passage. For in less than fifteen words, the Apostle John completely redefines God.
With no introduction, with no “Get ready; this might be hard to understand,” the Apostle John thrusts his readers helplessly into the very being of God. However, no mortal can withstand such an exposure for too long, so John will leave this mystery as quick as he introduced it, almost without warning. But let’s stop to take a glimpse of this verse.
I want to take a look at some of the mind-boggling implications of these opening words by a brilliant theologian, John, who earlier in his life was, off all things, trying to eke out a living as a Galilean fisherman.
Let me state at this time that these words would surely be considered the highest form of blasphemy by any orthodox, first century Jew. You may recall that Jews are theologically Monotheists. That simply means that they believe that there is only one being/individual who alone is God. This was the most sacred of all Jewish doctrines.
And they held this view not without reason. Notice this passage in Deuteronomy 6:4:
“Listen, Israel: As for the Lord your God, the Lord is one.”
Well, at least that’s how most Bibles translate it and how most Jews understand it. But as you can see, there is nothing in this verse that helps you fully comprehend what the word “one” means. Now I’m not trying to pull a Bill Clinton here, but how we understand “one” is absolutely critical to how we understand God.
And shortly after we take a closer look at John 1:1, you will see why it would be considered blasphemous… and probably why John repeats himself in the next verse, verse 2. The idea seems to be something like, “That’s right, you understood what I just wrote in verse 1. In fact, just to show you I didn’t make a mistake, I’ll repeat it again in verse 2.”
Here is where I am headed: the belief in “one God” would have to be completely redefined, if not abandoned altogether, based on John 1:1.
Let’s look at these verses a little closer. (That’s a good idea for any verse of Scripture, I might add.)
John opens with a prepositional phrase:
John wrote: EN ARCHi “in the beginning”
To help us understand which “beginning” John refers to, notice what he writes in verse 3: “All things were created by him…”
Here we see that the Word created all things, so we have to go to a “beginning” that is PRIOR TO the creation of all things. In fact, that would be before the famous “beginning” that we read about on the first page of the bible (Genesis 1:1):
“In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”
So, we might want to paraphrase so far what this verse implies. Give me a little leeway, but I’ll try to go behind the scenes and paraphrase John 1:1a in this manner:
“In the beginning, a beginning that precedes the creation of all things, the Word already was…”
Now, here is where John catches the readers off guard. The verb used here would cause the reader to wrinkle their eyebrows. The verb he uses is HN, which is the Imperfect Tense of EIMI, translated “was” in most bibles. But we need to be a little more specific, since the Greek reader would not have missed this.
The Imperfect Tense denotes action in progress PRIOR TO the point in time being discussed. What is the point in time under discussion: the beginning. What beginning? The beginning of the creation of all things (not just on earth but in heaven also, which would include angels). So, let’s state the implication very clearly here. First look again at the translation:
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God
and the Word was God.”
The implication: The Word was in existence PRIOR TO the beginning of the creation of all things!
Folks, you only have two types of beings/individuals: created ones and non-created ones. That exhausts all possible options (since a self-caused being is irrational).

 

[KUWN]

Without any introduction, here are the words the Apostle John chose to begin his gospel:
EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS
Roughly translated: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John realized the staggering implications of his opening verse, so much so, that he virtually repeats himself in the very next verse:
hOUTOS HN EN ARCHi PROS TON QEON
Translated: “This one was in the beginning with God.”
As you can see, this verse seems painfully redundant. But now the reader must stop. The perceptive reader of the first century most assuredly would be in total shock after only partially grasping the implications of this dynamic passage. For in less than fifteen words, the Apostle John completely redefines God.
With no introduction, with no “Get ready; this might be hard to understand,” the Apostle John thrusts his readers helplessly into the very being of God. However, no mortal can withstand such an exposure for too long, so John will leave this mystery as quick as he introduced it, almost without warning. But let’s stop to take a glimpse of this verse.
I want to take a look at some of the mind-boggling implications of these opening words by a brilliant theologian, John, who earlier in his life was, off all things, trying to eke out a living as a Galilean fisherman.
Let me state at this time that these words would surely be considered the highest form of blasphemy by any orthodox, first century Jew. You may recall that Jews are theologically Monotheists. That simply means that they believe that there is only one being/individual who alone is God. This was the most sacred of all Jewish doctrines.
And they held this view not without reason. Notice this passage in Deuteronomy 6:4:
“Listen, Israel: As for the Lord your God, the Lord is one.”
Well, at least that’s how most Bibles translate it and how most Jews understand it. But as you can see, there is nothing in this verse that helps you fully comprehend what the word “one” means. Now I’m not trying to pull a Bill Clinton here, but how we understand “one” is absolutely critical to how we understand God.
And shortly after we take a closer look at John 1:1, you will see why it would be considered blasphemous… and probably why John repeats himself in the next verse, verse 2. The idea seems to be something like, “That’s right, you understood what I just wrote in verse 1. In fact, just to show you I didn’t make a mistake, I’ll repeat it again in verse 2.”
Here is where I am headed: the belief in “one God” would have to be completely redefined, if not abandoned altogether, based on John 1:1.
Let’s look at these verses a little closer. (That’s a good idea for any verse of Scripture, I might add.)
John opens with a prepositional phrase:
John wrote: EN ARCHi “in the beginning”
To help us understand which “beginning” John refers to, notice what he writes in verse 3: “All things were created by him…”
Here we see that the Word created all things, so we have to go to a “beginning” that is PRIOR TO the creation of all things. In fact, that would be before the famous “beginning” that we read about on the first page of the bible (Genesis 1:1):
“In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”
So, we might want to paraphrase so far what this verse implies. Give me a little leeway, but I’ll try to go behind the scenes and paraphrase John 1:1a in this manner:
“In the beginning, a beginning that precedes the creation of all things, the Word already was…”
Now, here is where John catches the readers off guard. The verb used here would cause the reader to wrinkle their eyebrows. The verb he uses is HN, which is the Imperfect Tense of EIMI, translated “was” in most bibles. But we need to be a little more specific, since the Greek reader would not have missed this.
The Imperfect Tense denotes action in progress PRIOR TO the point in time being discussed. What is the point in time under discussion: the beginning. What beginning? The beginning of the creation of all things (not just on earth but in heaven also, which would include angels). So, let’s state the implication very clearly here. First look again at the translation:
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God
and the Word was God.”
The implication: The Word was in existence PRIOR TO the beginning of the creation of all things!
Folks, you only have two types of beings/individuals: created ones and non-created ones. That exhausts all possible options (since a self-caused being is irrational).

more on John...

So, John, with one stroke of his pen, tells us who the Word (later defined as Jesus) was. Jesus is God! That “carpenter” was God?! A Jew would simply have called this statement blasphemous.


But John shows no mercy as he continues. Jesus is not the same as God? We know this because we are told that the Word (Jesus) was “with” God. John again is blatantly clear: Jesus is God since he existed prior to anyone or anything that was created, and only God existed before the first act of creation, but John also adds that Jesus was “with God.”


Well, the only way you can have Jesus as God, being WITH God, is to have two individuals who are both God. That way, you can have one WITH the other. (The word WITH, the Greek word PROS, means “in the very presence of.” So, when I say Jesus was WITH God, I mean Jesus was IN THE VERY PRESENCE OF GOD.)

Just in case I am not being crystal clear, maybe I should try another paraphrase of John 1:1:

“In the beginning, a beginning that precedes the creation of all things, the Word was already in existence, and hence, by virtue of existing PRIOR TO the creation of all things, this Word, known as Jesus, must of necessity be God, and not only that, but the Word (Jesus, who we now know is God) was WITH God, which would require there being TWO beings, since one is WITH or IN THE PRESENCE OF the other.”

Wow. All that and we really haven’t even started with John’s gospel. Now, I think you can see why a Jew would rip his clothes and cry “Blasphemy!”

To a Jew, no one existed prior to God. There is only one individual who is God, and that is the God of Israel, known as Jehovah, so the Jew would argue. For John to imply that Jesus existed PRIOR TO the creation of ALL THINGS is utter blasphemy. Be sure you get that! Jesus existed prior to PANTA (Greek), ALL THINGS.

We’re not through: or rather, John’s not through. Let’s keep these opening verses in front of us; the first three will do:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word was with God in the beginning. (Note the virtual repeat.)

All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.”

Sequentially, you have the following:


1. God eternally exists before anything is created
2. Jesus creates all things (hence, Jesus can not be created)
3. Jesus IS God and WITH/IN THE PRESENCE OF God

John is very clear. There can be no mistake as to whom Jesus is. He is none other than God, but since he is said to be WITH God, there must be more than one God! Right? The answer depends on how you define “one God.”

Let me quickly quote another passage that John later writes. I think the implications of the passage I am about to quote from John will give you much food for thought. It reads in the NET Bible (Jesus is praying to the Father about those who have and will believed in him):

17:22 The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be ONE just as we are ONE 17:23 I in them and you in me— that they may be completely ONE…


Now, let me just say here that we can see that “one” does not mean “one numerically.” Jesus prays that the billion of believers may be “one.” And not only that, Jesus prays that the billions of believers will be one… JUST LIKE HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE. This statement is critical to understand.

To save some time for now, let me just boldly say that the idea of ONE denotes the idea of UNITY, functioning as ONE.

Hence, the idea of God being “one” has more the idea of God functioning as a Unit (or if I may be so crude, that God is ONE in the sense of UNITY, which is surely what Jesus is praying for us to be.)

That is why Jesus says “I do nothing by myself, but what the Father instructs me to do, that I do.” God the Father and God the Son function in complete unity. And in that sense, God is one. I realize this is awkward English, but it is not at all awkward Greek. Bear with me.


Finally, do not think of “God” as an individual, but as a Title. Rather, think of “God the Father” as an individual being, and think of “God the Son” as an individual being, each possessing the title, God.

Reread the previous paragraph a few times please. Don’t cry Blasphemy!





Quote Reply

Report

 

[KUWN]

So that, when I talk about the Trinity, I say, “There is one Godhead, and within the Godhead, there are three distinct Beings: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Godhead possesses an eternal, infinite, unchanging nature.”
This is the kind of article you really need to reread and reflect upon. Take time to read it through SLOWLY. It can be pretty intense.
For further consideration: The Greeks had a belief in what was known as the Pantheon. It was basically a belief in many gods (like Zeus, Apollo, etc.). But each god had different characteristics, different strengths. And these gods were often in disagreement with each other. They fought among themselves. Some were even born.
We call that belief today Polytheism, the belief in many gods. Polytheism is the polar opposite of the Godhead, or Trinity. Within Polytheism, you have many gods of varying strengths and purposes, some who were once like you and me… mere mortals. And of course, Polytheism is fictitious. But within the Godhead, you have three Beings who each possess a nature with the exact same attributes and characteristics. In fact, Jesus could say, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” (That is, although they are different Beings, they are exactly equal in all respects.)
God the Father loves you with an infinite love. God the Son loves you with an infinite love. Therefore, one can not love more or less than the other. God the Father is all-knowing. God the Holy Spirit (and the Son) is all-knowing. Hence, within the Godhead, each member knows the exact same things. God the Son is holy; God the Holy Spirit is holy; they both possess the same holiness. (One is not more holy than the other.) And on and on we could go. But I think you get the idea of why the Godhead must function as unit, and therefore, can be viewed as “one.” Each member of the Godhead has a nature that is infinite, absolute, and unchangeable. They always operate as one, as a unit. You might say: God is one. Or, you might say: the Godhead is a unit, functioning in absolute unity.
(I also might add this. Any being who possesses an eternal, infinite, unchanging nature must be given the title, God. Three such beings possess such a nature, and we give each one the title ‘God.’)

 

[RedFan]

I think John 1:1 used Ἐν ἀρχῇ in precisely the same sense as Gen. 1:1 in the LXX used Ἐν ἀρχῇ -- to denote the beginning of creation. This is a reference to the very first point in "time" when God first started to create. Certainly the Word of God was the agent for doing so, as John asserts in v. 3, so if any creation is to occur the Word had to be in existence at that point. But to say that the Word existed before that point, before creation, needs some philosophical explanation.

"Time" didn't exist before creation. Time is a measure of change. Before creation of the universe there was nothing around that could change. So we cannot even say that the Word existed even a minute before creation. The notion of a pre-creation "minute" (or hour, or second, or millenium) is nonsensical.

 

[KUWN]

I think John 1:1 used Ἐν ἀρχῇ in precisely the same sense as Gen. 1:1 in the LXX used Ἐν ἀρχῇ -- to denote the beginning of creation. This is a reference to the very first point in "time" when God first started to create. Certainly the Word of God was the agent for doing so, as John asserts in v. 3, so if any creation is to occur the Word had to be in existence at that point. But to say that the Word existed before that point, before creation, needs some philosophical explanation.

"Time" didn't exist before creation. Time is a measure of change. Before creation of the universe there was nothing around that could change. So we cannot even say that the Word existed even a minute before creation. The notion of a pre-creation "minute" (or hour, or second, or millenium) is nonsensical.

The word you are looking for is sans. Not "before." I just used the word 'before' to keep it from getting too Philosophical. The word sans means "without." Before Creation was metaphysical time. God is eternal and has existed sans creation. sans is as word that William Lane Craig uses when he debates atheists/agnostics. So, don't get too technical, but you are right, I probably should have used sans and explain what it means.

Sans is an attempt to avoid temporal implicature. BTW, good catch!

GJohn 1.1 says In the beginning was the Word... the word 'was' is the Imperfect of EIMI (he/she/it is). The Imperfect says that the Word was ALREADY in existence in the beginning. This is using the language of accommodation since the Imperfect of EIMI denotes a temporal relationship.

 

[RedFan]

The word you are looking for is sans. Not "before." I just used the word 'before' to keep it from getting too Philosophical. The word sans means "without." Before Creation was metaphysical time. God is eternal and has existed sans creation. sans is as word that William Lane Craig uses when he debates atheists/agnostics. So, don't get too technical, but you are right, I probably should have used sans and explain what it means.

Sans is an attempt to avoid temporal implicature. BTW, good catch!

GJohn 1.1 says In the beginning was the Word... the word 'was' is the Imperfect of EIMI (he/she/it is). The Imperfect says that the Word was ALREADY in existence in the beginning. This is using the language of accommodation since the Imperfect of EIMI denotes a temporal relationship.

Point taken. And I'm glad you brought up Craig.

I agree that the imperfect tense in Greek denotes a temporal relationship -- more succinctly, a period between t1 and t2 when the verb's past action or descriptive state occurred or existed. Use of the imperfect in John 1:1 tells us that the Word existed at t1 and at t2 -- but tells us nothing about when t1 was. We cannot establish the termini merely from the use of the imperfect.

I think Craig's point was that if we cannot place t1 before creation, then we can place it sans creation. I think that is a total cop out, with all due respect to Dr. Craig. His book Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time says at p. 141 "at the moment of creation, God comes into the relation of sustaining the universe or, at the very least, of coexisting with the universe, relations in which he did not stand before.” But those "relations in which he did not stand before" are unexplained; he simply declares at p. 186 "I speak of God’s existing timelessly sans creation, not before it.” Craig tries to avoid temporal language in order to avoid a contradiction, and in doing so begs the question. I'm not the first to notice this.

https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=thesis

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think John 1:1 used Ἐν ἀρχῇ in precisely the same sense as Gen. 1:1 in the LXX used Ἐν ἀρχῇ -- to denote the beginning of creation. This is a reference to the very first point in "time" when God first started to create. Certainly the Word of God was the agent for doing so, as John asserts in v. 3, so if any creation is to occur the Word had to be in existence at that point. But to say that the Word existed before that point, before creation, needs some philosophical explanation.

"Time" didn't exist before creation. Time is a measure of change. Before creation of the universe there was nothing around that could change. So we cannot even say that the Word existed even a minute before creation. The notion of a pre-creation "minute" (or hour, or second, or millenium) is nonsensical.

JOhn's point is that god existed before creation (space, time, matter) and jesus existed with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The word you are looking for is sans. Not "before." I just used the word 'before' to keep it from getting too Philosophical. The word sans means "without." Before Creation was metaphysical time. God is eternal and has existed sans creation. sans is as word that William Lane Craig uses when he debates atheists/agnostics. So, don't get too technical, but you are right, I probably should have used sans and explain what it means.

Sans is an attempt to avoid temporal implicature. BTW, good catch!

GJohn 1.1 says In the beginning was the Word... the word 'was' is the Imperfect of EIMI (he/she/it is). The Imperfect says that the Word was ALREADY in existence in the beginning. This is using the language of accommodation since the Imperfect of EIMI denotes a temporal relationship.

What is most misunderstood in John 1:1 is the use of the word "theos" with and without the definite article. when it appears with teh definite article it is speaking of a specific person (ex.: the mayor, the president etc.) When used without the article it is describing a characteristic of the subject (logos)

so in essence as teh rest of John teaches Jesus is not the Fqather but is as divine or "God essenced as His Father!

 

[ChristinaL]

Without any introduction, here are the words the Apostle John chose to begin his gospel:
EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS
Roughly translated: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John realized the staggering implications of his opening verse, so much so, that he virtually repeats himself in the very next verse:
hOUTOS HN EN ARCHi PROS TON QEON
Translated: “This one was in the beginning with God.”
As you can see, this verse seems painfully redundant. But now the reader must stop. The perceptive reader of the first century most assuredly would be in total shock after only partially grasping the implications of this dynamic passage. For in less than fifteen words, the Apostle John completely redefines God.
With no introduction, with no “Get ready; this might be hard to understand,” the Apostle John thrusts his readers helplessly into the very being of God. However, no mortal can withstand such an exposure for too long, so John will leave this mystery as quick as he introduced it, almost without warning. But let’s stop to take a glimpse of this verse.
I want to take a look at some of the mind-boggling implications of these opening words by a brilliant theologian, John, who earlier in his life was, off all things, trying to eke out a living as a Galilean fisherman.
Let me state at this time that these words would surely be considered the highest form of blasphemy by any orthodox, first century Jew. You may recall that Jews are theologically Monotheists. That simply means that they believe that there is only one being/individual who alone is God. This was the most sacred of all Jewish doctrines.
And they held this view not without reason. Notice this passage in Deuteronomy 6:4:
“Listen, Israel: As for the Lord your God, the Lord is one.”
Well, at least that’s how most Bibles translate it and how most Jews understand it. But as you can see, there is nothing in this verse that helps you fully comprehend what the word “one” means. Now I’m not trying to pull a Bill Clinton here, but how we understand “one” is absolutely critical to how we understand God.
And shortly after we take a closer look at John 1:1, you will see why it would be considered blasphemous… and probably why John repeats himself in the next verse, verse 2. The idea seems to be something like, “That’s right, you understood what I just wrote in verse 1. In fact, just to show you I didn’t make a mistake, I’ll repeat it again in verse 2.”
Here is where I am headed: the belief in “one God” would have to be completely redefined, if not abandoned altogether, based on John 1:1.
Let’s look at these verses a little closer. (That’s a good idea for any verse of Scripture, I might add.)
John opens with a prepositional phrase:
John wrote: EN ARCHi “in the beginning”
To help us understand which “beginning” John refers to, notice what he writes in verse 3: “All things were created by him…”
Here we see that the Word created all things, so we have to go to a “beginning” that is PRIOR TO the creation of all things. In fact, that would be before the famous “beginning” that we read about on the first page of the bible (Genesis 1:1):
“In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”
So, we might want to paraphrase so far what this verse implies. Give me a little leeway, but I’ll try to go behind the scenes and paraphrase John 1:1a in this manner:
“In the beginning, a beginning that precedes the creation of all things, the Word already was…”
Now, here is where John catches the readers off guard. The verb used here would cause the reader to wrinkle their eyebrows. The verb he uses is HN, which is the Imperfect Tense of EIMI, translated “was” in most bibles. But we need to be a little more specific, since the Greek reader would not have missed this.
The Imperfect Tense denotes action in progress PRIOR TO the point in time being discussed. What is the point in time under discussion: the beginning. What beginning? The beginning of the creation of all things (not just on earth but in heaven also, which would include angels). So, let’s state the implication very clearly here. First look again at the translation:
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God
and the Word was God.”
The implication: The Word was in existence PRIOR TO the beginning of the creation of all things!
Folks, you only have two types of beings/individuals: created ones and non-created ones. That exhausts all possible options (since a self-caused being is irrational).

It is the Holy Ghost writing through John so no John 1:1-3 AND VS 14 is not blasphemous. Jesus is the Word. The Word/Jesus was with God and the Word/Jesus was God.

Does anybody here think Jesus is blaspheming when in Revelation He calls HIMSELF Alpha and Omega?

 

[KUWN]

Point taken. And I'm glad you brought up Craig.

I agree that the imperfect tense in Greek denotes a temporal relationship -- more succinctly, a period between t1 and t2 when the verb's past action or descriptive state occurred or existed. Use of the imperfect in John 1:1 tells us that the Word existed at t1 and at t2 -- but tells us nothing about when t1 was. We cannot establish the termini merely from the use of the imperfect.

I think Craig's point was that if we cannot place t1 before creation, then we can place it sans creation. I think that is a total cop out, with all due respect to Dr. Craig. His book Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time says at p. 141 "at the moment of creation, God comes into the relation of sustaining the universe or, at the very least, of coexisting with the universe, relations in which he did not stand before.” But those "relations in which he did not stand before" are unexplained; he simply declares at p. 186 "I speak of God’s existing timelessly sans creation, not before it.” Craig tries to avoid temporal language in order to avoid a contradiction, and in doing so begs the question. I'm not the first to notice this.

https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=thesis

Since God is an eternally existent being, how do we refer to his state of existence sans t1? In other words, assume there was no creation.

As far as when t1 occurred, I think you can take any beginning, no matter which beginning you select, God was already in existence. Remember, GJohn 1.1 says literally, "in a beginning the Word already was." Choose any beginning you want, and the statement John makes holds true.
Can we say that t1 was the beginning of created finite time. Perhaps prior to created finite time was infinite duration. God created space, time, energy, and matter.

The Bible occasionally uses analogy to teach a truth. Can we use the word "time" as an analogy to refer to when God existed sans creation?

 

[ChristinaL]

What is most misunderstood in John 1:1 is the use of the word "theos" with and without the definite article. when it appears with teh definite article it is speaking of a specific person (ex.: the mayor, the president etc.) When used without the article it is describing a characteristic of the subject (logos)

so in essence as teh rest of John teaches Jesus is not the Fqather but is as divine or "God essenced as His Father!

People will often ask if Jesus is God then why didnt He ever just come out and say I AM GOD. Well you pretty much just expressed the answer right there. Because even though He and the apostles did say in many different ways that Jesus is God if Jesus just said straight out I am God people who dont understand the nature of God would have thought Jesus was calling Himself the Father when He isnt

 

[KUWN]

I think John 1:1 used Ἐν ἀρχῇ in precisely the same sense as Gen. 1:1 in the LXX used Ἐν ἀρχῇ -- to denote the beginning of creation. This is a reference to the very first point in "time" when God first started to create. Certainly the Word of God was the agent for doing so, as John asserts in v. 3, so if any creation is to occur the Word had to be in existence at that point. But to say that the Word existed before that point, before creation, needs some philosophical explanation.

"Time" didn't exist before creation. Time is a measure of change. Before creation of the universe there was nothing around that could change. So we cannot even say that the Word existed even a minute before creation. The notion of a pre-creation "minute" (or hour, or second, or millenium) is nonsensical.

I disagree. The Trinity was involved in communication before or sans creation. The Father communicated to the Other Members of the Trinity. As an example, if the Father said to the Son, "One, Two, Three" then he said One BEFORE he said Two. Since we don't know what infinite duration means, we have to use the language of accommodation.

 

[RedFan]

I disagree. The Trinity was involved in communication before or sans creation. The Father communicated to the Other Members of the Trinity. As an example, if the Father said to the Son, "One, Two, Three" then he said One BEFORE he said Two. Since we don't know what infinite duration means, we have to use the language of accommodation.

I don't see it. What would be the point of inter-personal communications in this setting?

 

[Bob Estey]

Without any introduction, here are the words the Apostle John chose to begin his gospel:
EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS
Roughly translated: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John realized the staggering implications of his opening verse, so much so, that he virtually repeats himself in the very next verse:
hOUTOS HN EN ARCHi PROS TON QEON
Translated: “This one was in the beginning with God.”
As you can see, this verse seems painfully redundant. But now the reader must stop. The perceptive reader of the first century most assuredly would be in total shock after only partially grasping the implications of this dynamic passage. For in less than fifteen words, the Apostle John completely redefines God.
With no introduction, with no “Get ready; this might be hard to understand,” the Apostle John thrusts his readers helplessly into the very being of God. However, no mortal can withstand such an exposure for too long, so John will leave this mystery as quick as he introduced it, almost without warning. But let’s stop to take a glimpse of this verse.
I want to take a look at some of the mind-boggling implications of these opening words by a brilliant theologian, John, who earlier in his life was, off all things, trying to eke out a living as a Galilean fisherman.
Let me state at this time that these words would surely be considered the highest form of blasphemy by any orthodox, first century Jew. You may recall that Jews are theologically Monotheists. That simply means that they believe that there is only one being/individual who alone is God. This was the most sacred of all Jewish doctrines.
And they held this view not without reason. Notice this passage in Deuteronomy 6:4:
“Listen, Israel: As for the Lord your God, the Lord is one.”
Well, at least that’s how most Bibles translate it and how most Jews understand it. But as you can see, there is nothing in this verse that helps you fully comprehend what the word “one” means. Now I’m not trying to pull a Bill Clinton here, but how we understand “one” is absolutely critical to how we understand God.
And shortly after we take a closer look at John 1:1, you will see why it would be considered blasphemous… and probably why John repeats himself in the next verse, verse 2. The idea seems to be something like, “That’s right, you understood what I just wrote in verse 1. In fact, just to show you I didn’t make a mistake, I’ll repeat it again in verse 2.”
Here is where I am headed: the belief in “one God” would have to be completely redefined, if not abandoned altogether, based on John 1:1.
Let’s look at these verses a little closer. (That’s a good idea for any verse of Scripture, I might add.)
John opens with a prepositional phrase:
John wrote: EN ARCHi “in the beginning”
To help us understand which “beginning” John refers to, notice what he writes in verse 3: “All things were created by him…”
Here we see that the Word created all things, so we have to go to a “beginning” that is PRIOR TO the creation of all things. In fact, that would be before the famous “beginning” that we read about on the first page of the bible (Genesis 1:1):
“In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”
So, we might want to paraphrase so far what this verse implies. Give me a little leeway, but I’ll try to go behind the scenes and paraphrase John 1:1a in this manner:
“In the beginning, a beginning that precedes the creation of all things, the Word already was…”
Now, here is where John catches the readers off guard. The verb used here would cause the reader to wrinkle their eyebrows. The verb he uses is HN, which is the Imperfect Tense of EIMI, translated “was” in most bibles. But we need to be a little more specific, since the Greek reader would not have missed this.
The Imperfect Tense denotes action in progress PRIOR TO the point in time being discussed. What is the point in time under discussion: the beginning. What beginning? The beginning of the creation of all things (not just on earth but in heaven also, which would include angels). So, let’s state the implication very clearly here. First look again at the translation:
“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God
and the Word was God.”
The implication: The Word was in existence PRIOR TO the beginning of the creation of all things!
Folks, you only have two types of beings/individuals: created ones and non-created ones. That exhausts all possible options (since a self-caused being is irrational).

Yes, this is rather long, and I see you aren't finished.

 

[Rita]

Thread locked as The Trinity is a banned subject