Christians To Become As Numerous As The Stars In The Sky? Yes!

If you check Bible Gateway for the English translations
of John 1:1 you find that ALL , , ,ALL , , the translators
translate the Logos as "Word."
I quickly counted 60 different English translations of John 1:1
and ALL of them translated "Logos" as "Word."
That's good enough for me.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 1:1

Wait , , ,
I went back for another look and there was 1 out of the 60
that did not translate Logos as Word. The VOICE translation
did not.

VOICE "Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking.
The Voice was and is God." John 1:1

I note that there is not much difference in "Voice" and "Word" if any
difference at all.

So?

So for all practical purposes ALL 60 English translations translate
John 1:1's Logos as Word.

So? So my view is that its very reasonable to stick with "In the
beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God." __ John 1:1


``

 

It depends on what we mean by "part of."
You live in a house.
In one sense you are "part of" your house.
In another sense you are NOT "part of" your house.
You are a person.
You live in an impersonal house that is not a person.
You are not your house.
You = House, not.
_________

Same with God.
God is distinct from His creation.
God is a Person.
God is not a thing like a keyboard is a thing.
God controls His creation.
God is a part of His creation like you are a part of your house.
God = Creation, not.


``

 

Agreed.

 

We gotta have a definition of what a person is.
A 2 x 4 is not a person {nor is any matter}
Dogs are not persons even though they do have emotions
in some sense.
No entity other than a person has the full-range of emotions
that humans have and enjoy.
So? So we need to expand our definition of "emotions" to
"the full range of emotions" that ONLY humans enjoy.
Otherwise we will have to say that dogs are persons.
How so? Because agreed that dogs do have emotions
in some limited sense of the word "emotions."
____________________________________
As an aside:
But nobody is going to say that dogs are persons
except maybe a few folks in PETA -- and that
reduces to insanity with regard to how that'd be
codified into law and enforced. The day dogs
become full persons before the law, is the day
that America ceases to exist and becomes a
permanent lunatic asylum.___JAG
___________________________________

Back to the main point:
God is obviously a Person {with an Intellect and Emotions and a Will-Volition }
~ intellect - created a fine-tuned Universe
~ emotions - created human love, sympathy, empathy
~ will-volition - decided to create a fine-tuned Universe and human love etc

God also knows who you are and where you live.
He knows your true heart's motives.
He created you and He has a purpose for your life.
But we have to open the door.
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears
my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with
that person, and they with me."___The Lord Jesus
Revelation 3:20


``

 

Christians To Become As Numerous As The Stars In The Sky? Yes!

You wrote a lot to make a simple point. Let me make it here in a simpler form. There are many Christians. Simple, no?

 

And they are all incorrect - this has been a convention of sorts - to which all translators abide. While you might have been unaware of the significance of this passage - and in particular the translation of the word "Logos" - I assure you the translators are not.

There is no debate that the word "Logos" was used. There is no debate that this word has different meanings - one of which is "Word"

So whats the problem ? - The question here is what did the author intend by use of the word "Logos"

So why do the translators choose this definition ? and not the other definition.

the Gospel of John is a Pauline Helenistic fusion work - "not debated" - written at a time when the Pauline branch of the Church was separating from Judaism - and anything Jewish. Hence why Luke and John both have a distinctly anti -jewish character.

But in any case - the author is writing to a Greek Audience - trying to make sense of Matt, Mark and Paul - and fuse them.
In his appeal to this Pauline Greek speaking Christian Audience . John uses concepts that the average Greek person is familiar with.

One of the main concepts in Greek Religious thought - and Philosophical thought - and the fusion that exists between the two - was the Logos Concept - this was an idea that the average Greek was familiar with.

They would also understand the Logos concept to mean "Word" - it depends on the context in which the word is being used.

If used in a religious context - the word logos meant - "emissary between man and God" .. aka "Divine Right" - something that Ceasar was claiming at the time "Pontifex Maximus"

There is no question that the Author is using this word in a Religious context - knowing exactly what the Audience would take the word to mean.

but at the same time there is a duality here .. Christ was the embodiment of the word ... "Christ Was Gods Word" - spoken through the Holy Spirit - in the form of a Man.

but - "being Gods Word" = the Logos - emissary between man and God.

At best we have the "Sin of Omission" - unless it is really well footnoted .. such as in the case of the long ending of Mark.

Checked one version - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV - unfortunately no footnotes.

So why the big secret - other footnotes exist for -say in places where other Gods are being discussed which is sensitive from a dogma perspective.

Cause this is the good stuff One thing that is clear - is that the conception of the author of the divinity of Jesus - and what Trinity Doctrine implies - and what Christians today believe - are very different.

Although John was a critical step in the evolution of religious thought - with respect to the nature of the divinity of Jesus.

In Mark - Jesus is deified at his baptism - no virgin birth , no genealogy back to David in fulfillment of the Messianic Tradition of the day - which was hot and heavy - Jesus being one of a number of candidates.

but in Mark ( 65 ad) Jesus was the one true Messiah... but does not contain a virgin birth and physical resurrection stories - Jesus appearing in the flesh after death.

Matt writing just after the fall of the temple (80- 90ad) used all of Mark as a source document - and adds a few things .. virgin birth - stories of Jesus in the flesh after death "the resurrection smoking gun".

The divinity of Jesus has evolved - now deified at birth.

In John (100-120 ad) the divinity of Jesus takes a further step - Jesus is depicted as being "Pre - incarnate" - with God.

Yes we have the first sniff of the trinity here - but, modern Trinity Dogma it is not. Jesus and God are still two separate entities. Most of the early Church Fathers - during this time and for the next 100 years - were Subordinationists - believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

Occums razor at this point kicks in - the simple answer to the "no footnote" is because this is a can of worms that is too big to open - a "Pandora's box" of sorts.

 

We will have to disagree on that one.
The New Testament writers originated the concept
of the Trinity.

Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit."
~ Father
~ Son
~ Holy Spirit

2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
be with you all."
~ The Lord Jesus Christ
~ God
~ The Holy Spirit

_____________


Moreover, the way the Bible is written demands that we
read it Trinitarian.

Some example
* Jesus said "I and my Father are one."

* John writes in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the
Word . . .and the Word was God"

* The Lord Jesus forgave sins. Nobody but God
can forgive sins.

__________

Its not possible to read through the New Testament
and escape the clear affirmations that:
~ The Father
~ The Son
~ The Holy Spirit , , ,
, , are all Three God.
They all Three function as
God --- all Three do what ONLY
God could do


``.

 

All 60 of 'em.
Wow!
Okeeee
_____

Giftedone, I want to thank you for writing all that
up for me. I truly appreciate you doing that. I can tell
you put some effort and time into it and I do thank you.

But all that is way way "out of my world" and the only
replies I have to what you wrote would be to quote
Bible verses and I'm pretty sure you're not looking for
that kind of approach.

By the way, I read every word you wrote.

Pandora's Box. Yah. i know what that is. , , LOL , , ,

______

Giftedone, I'm just curious.
Can you tell me the name of your beliefs?
Christian?
What denomination?
Some other?
{ignore the question if you prefer not to answer)

JAG


``

 

You are missing the central point. Of course Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were believed in and on.
The question being addressed here is whether or not they believed that all three were the same - and this is simply not the case.

 

You are going into avoidance mode - because the topic is too sensitive - I get it and understand that one well.

You are also starting to engage shady tactics - cherry picking phrases. and taking them out of context -in an effort to demonize the messenger - because you can't handle the message.

At minimum you have the sin of omission - at least in the case of the NIV - and this is wrong. I don't know if all 60 did not give footnotes - so I have not claimed all are "Wrong" in that respect.

Down the disingenuous road of denial we have gone.

 

That is all incorrect.

___________________________________________
JAG Wrote:
All 60 of 'em.
Wow!
Okeeee
_____

Giftedone, I want to thank you for writing all that
up for me. I truly appreciate you doing that. I can tell
you put some effort and time into it and I do thank you.

But all that is way way "out of my world" and the only
replies I have to what you wrote would be to quote
Bible verses and I'm pretty sure you're not looking for
that kind of approach.

By the way, I read every word you wrote.


Pandora's Box. Yah. i know what that is. , , LOL , , ,

______

Giftedone, I'm just curious.
Can you tell me the name of your beliefs?
Christian?
What denomination?
Some other?
{ignore the question if you prefer not to answer)

JAG
____________________________________

And then Giftedone post this nonsense:

See what I bolded up there.
YOU are the one that is doing the personal attacks and leveling
the accusations.

I was 100% honest and 100% polite in everything I said to you.

Not one (1} single insult not even one slight veiled insult.

I am NOT going into avoidance mode. I have no personal
interest in discussing what you posted about.

I have NOT used any shady tactics. Zero.

I am no more disingenuous than YOU are.

I have NOT said one single thing to demonize you.

You must be having hallucinations .

I know one thing. The Internet is packed and saturated
with HATE and HOSTILITY --- just like the streets of
America today.

Humans get along like cats and dogs.

Even when you try to be nice to somebody -- they'll
suddenly "turn on you" and its bite and devour time.

I said to you:
"Giftedone, I want to thank you for writing all that
up for me. I truly appreciate you doing that. I can tell
you put some effort and time into it and I do thank you."__JAG

And then you write that crap up there to me in return.

________


You can find somebody else to talk to.


``

``

 

You cherry picked one sentence and mischaracterized its meaning - pretending I had completely disagreed with the translation of the 60 - and that was all there was to the story. This is called a "Stawman fallacy" - if you want to get specific. These are shady tactics.

Then turning around and claiming that I am attacking you for calling out your flaw - is another shady tactic. An effort in avoidance and denial.

The old - accuse the poster of something he didn't say - and then when called out accuse the poster of attacking you trick.

You also engaged in Appeal to Authority fallacy - because you could not bear to comment on the material presented.

You ran like a scared rabbit away from the actual discussion .. and now you cry "you can find someone else to talk to" - but -I have been talking to myself for a number of posts already- as you disengaged long ago.

 

False.
Incorrect.
Zero shady tactics.
Zero Strawman fallacies.
Zero avoidance. I do NOT want to talk to YOU.
Zero appeal to authority.
You post scared rabbit posts.
I cry not. Your posted nonsense is not worth one tear.
You can keep your opinions to yourself.

``

 

Yes you did - as part of your avoidance tactic -and now you are trying to project your issues "running away like a scared rabbit" on to me.

You run from the playground crying "nonsense nonsense" - but that my friend is not an argument for much.

Cherry picking a sentence stating "60 experts" without further comment is classic appeal to authority fallacy.

Responding with a nonsense comment like "All 60 of 'em Wow! Okeeee" to rather lengthy post - with no further comment is classic avoidance.

What is someone to infer from such a comment ? What on earth are you referring to ? What has you so shocked.

Your speechless - all you can do is exclaim " WOW" Okeeee - a snide comment at best - tying to infer the other is loopy - with zero commentary on what on earth you are so flabbergasted over.

Its ok .. I understand - you want to make the bad thought go away - and you have succeeded

 

I have no issues.
Avoidance NOT. I do not want to talk to YOU.
Your posts are scared rabbit posts.
You post nonsense.
I cherry pick not.
No snide comments from me.
You post falseness.
Your posts are Incorrect.
I have Zero shady tactics.
I have Zero Strawman fallacies.
I have Zero appeal to authority fallacies.
I cry not. Your posted nonsense is not worth one tear.
You can keep your opinions to yourself.

 

"No No No No No" Got it

Proverbs read you must - about those that do not take correction well.

 

Where did you get the authority to administer correction?
You can start with correcting yourself.
You're no moral authority to correct anybody else.

 

Of course I have the moral authority to correct someone who is cherry picks phrases out of a paragraph and takes them out of context.

I never claimed to have moral authority to point out your other errors - sue me but errors they were.

 

You have no moral authority to correct me on anything.
I cherry pick not.
I take nothing out of context.

 

OK - ya got me - please .. no more .

 

Okay.

 

Giftedone,
I just re-read this thread.
I got interested because of the ugly stuff that went on in the 16 Bible Verses Thread today.
Here is what I learned in this thread.
You were the one that started the insults and accusations.
I was 100% polite and courteous and respectful to you in every way.
How I treated you is all here in this short thread.
All your have to do is merely read what I wrote and then read what you wrote.
Your insults started when I did not respond to your views on John1:1 the way you wanted.
JAG Wrote:
All 60 of 'em.
Wow!
Okeeee

You didn't like that, so you started with the insults.

You posted back and said:

Giftedone Wrote:
You are going into avoidance mode - because the topic is too
sensitive - I get it and understand that one well.

You are also starting to engage shady tactics -

cherry picking phrases.

and taking them out of context -

in an effort to demonize the messenger -

because you can't handle the message.

At minimum you have the sin of omission - at least in the
case of the NIV - and this is wrong. I don't know if all 60
did not give footnotes - so I have not claimed all are "Wrong"
in that respect.

Down the disingenuous road of denial we have gone.
End quote.
____________________


And I mean I had not said one {1} single word that was
anything but polite, courteous, and respectful and in fact
if you read the thread you will see that I went out of my
way to be extra polite, courteous, and respectful and to
thank you sincerely for your posts.

You repaid my kindness and politeness with those insults
bolded red up there --- merely because I you did not like
it when I posted this:
JAG Wrote:
All 60 of 'em.
Wow!
Okeeee

What I wrote up there is the truth.
Just re-read the thread and you'll see it. Its a short thread.

Best.

JAG

``

``

 

The above post is yet another exercise in avoidance. Nothing above has anything to do with the fact that most Christians do not share your belief in talking donkeys - or that God is this xenophobic - flip flopping - genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

You can not handle the reality of your own beliefs -and so you desperately try to change the subject - and demonize the messenger.

You have put God into this little box - turned God into some kind of nasty and foolish entity - that is what your literalist dogma does - which is why it is rejected by most of Christianity - and likely the majority of Protestant Christianity.

In general - it is mostly the Fundamentalist Evangelical and Pentecostals have taken such beliefs to such a ridiculous level - to the point - where when shown what their beliefs are in the mirror they get angry and start to engage in thought avoidance.

 

Your views no longer interest me.
The Evangelicals and Pentecostals know far more than you know.
Your posts are deserving of 100% avoidance.
You seek to demonize those who disagree with your absurd posts.
My view is that your posts are befuddled and that you post heresy.
My view is that you love Richard Dawkins fervently. .
My view is that you post fallacious gibberish.
You don't know what I believe.
You don't even know what you believe.
You're all over the place with gibberish and utter theological nonsense.
You hold an evil absurd interpretation of Christianity.
Your views are unorthodox heresy.
You know nothing about me looking in a mirror.
Your views are theological liberal and far left liberal too.
You are projecting on to others the flaws you possess.
By the way, a convincing Yoda you are not.
"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will.”. – Yoda.

Liberal Theological Heresy:
"The Trinity is a man made concept - given to us by a
Pagan Emperor for political purposes."___Giftedone

"You say "God Created the Universe" - and had some plan.
I say - God IS the Universe - and everything that is unfolding
is part of God - the good - the bad - and the ugly"___Giftedone

JAG

 

What theological nonsense ? We are discussing your theology and your views - not mine

You can not handle the reality of your own beliefs -and so you desperately try to change the subject - and demonize the messenger - and spew nonsensical gibberish

You have put God into this little box - turned God into some kind of nasty and foolish entity - that is what your literalist dogma does - which is why it is rejected by most of Christianity - and likely the majority of Protestant Christianity.

In general - it is mostly the Fundamentalist Evangelical and Pentecostals have taken such beliefs to such a ridiculous level - to the point - where when shown what their beliefs are in the mirror they get angry and start to engage in thought avoidance.

That is exactly what you have been doing. All I did was state what your beliefs were - namely - that God is some xenophobic flip flopping genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

You can't stand to have your beliefs put front and center and so you have been avoiding your own self proclaimed Truth.

It is your views that we are discussing - your literalist perspective where talking donkeys are real - and God is as stated above.

My heresy has nothing to do with your literalist perspective that you cant defend.