9thdoctor Posted May 27, 2013 Author Share Posted May 27, 2013 Like for example God created the word in seven days, yeah right. I think He did that on the eighth day. --Brant"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God..." Read carefully, the Word was already there on Day Zero. Never mind whether they really had the concept Zero. What are you, some kind of Arian Heretic? An Adoptionist, perhaps? Time to start collecting firewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."Read carefully, the Word was already there on Day Zero. Never mind whether they really had the concept Zero.Genesis 1:"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" The whole thing is a cascade of contradictions. No surprise there. But what else can be expected, given the many different authors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Angela,Notice what you actually wrote in post #74, not what you meant to write. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Angela,Notice what you actually wrote in post #74, not what you meant to write. EllenThat's called a Johnian Slip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Angela,Notice what you actually wrote in post #74, not what you meant to write. EllenOh, I've overlooked that typo - thank you, Ellen! "God created the 'word' in seven days", lol. That's called a Johnian Slip.Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Like for example God created the word in seven days, yeah right. I think He did that on the eighth day.--Brant"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."Read carefully, the Word was already there on Day Zero. Never mind whether they really had the concept Zero.What are you, some kind of Arian Heretic? An Adoptionist, perhaps?Time to start collecting firewood.Wait a minute! I just realized that if this is true then The Word is the First Cause--not God! Epistemology not metaphysics bases everything out!--BrantI'm not usually this slowwho needs data when we've got thinking?(But what was The Word before The Word?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted June 8, 2013 Author Share Posted June 8, 2013 I just realized that if this is true then The Word is the First Cause--not God!"...The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." So God made it, ok? And God = The Word. So by algebraic substitution one could say the The Word made it, but when you then say 'not God' you've fallen, yet again, into heresy and error. No that we've got the firewood, it's time for the kindling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 I just realized that if this is true then The Word is the First Cause--not God!"...The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."So God made it, ok? And God = The Word. So by algebraic substitution one could say the The Word made it, but when you then say 'not God' you've fallen, yet again, into heresy and error.No that we've got the firewood, it's time for the kindling.No, no, no--pleeze don't throw me into that fire patch!No fair algebra--Arab invention.--Brantasbestos clothing, ha, ha, ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God..." That statement is referring to Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 It's the beginning of the Old Testament, so it isn't a reference to Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 9, 2013 Share Posted June 9, 2013 It's the beginning of the Old Testament, so it isn't a reference to Christ.It's in the New Testament and it is a reference to Christ.John 1:1Amplified Bible (AMP)1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 As far as verifiability , what if John was wrong , mistaken or just making it up, John was human , yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 It's the beginning of the Old Testament, so it isn't a reference to Christ. It's in the New Testament and it is a reference to Christ. John 1:1Amplified Bible (AMP)1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.The original language of the Gospel according to John was Greek. "Logos" is the Greek word translated as "Word." "Logos" was an embracing term, encompassing "ordering principle" generally.How do the Amplified Bible people arrive at this term being equated with Christ?In a quick and unsuccessful Google to try to find some background on that interpretation, I came across this discussion of the differences between John and the synoptic gospelshttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.htmlThe Gospel of JohnEmbedded in the so-called "spiritual gospel" is an architectural hostility toward Judaism.The material is part of a Connecticut PBS "Frontline" series From Jesus to Christ.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 As far as verifiability , what if John was wrong , mistaken or just making it up, John was human , yes?He certainly could have been. I was solely commenting on the source of the verse, not on it's perceived veracity. That is purely a personal choice which has absolutely nothing to do with others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 It's the beginning of the Old Testament, so it isn't a reference to Christ. It's in the New Testament and it is a reference to Christ. John 1:1Amplified Bible (AMP)1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.The original language of the Gospel according to John was Greek. "Logos" is the Greek word translated as "Word." "Logos" was an embracing term, encompassing "ordering principle" generally.How do the Amplified Bible people arrive at this term being equated with Christ?In a quick and unsuccessful Google to try to find some background on that interpretation, I came across this discussion of the differences between John and the synoptic gospelshttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.htmlThe Gospel of JohnEmbedded in the so-called "spiritual gospel" is an architectural hostility toward Judaism.The material is part of a Connecticut PBS "Frontline" series From Jesus to Christ.EllenHow do the Amplified Bible people arrive at this term being equated with Christ?That is not the only New testament source referring to Christ as the Word of God. Here is a far more graphic direct reference to Christ: Revelation 19:11-13 11 After that I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse [appeared]! The One Who was riding it is called Faithful (Trustworthy, Loyal, Incorruptible, Steady) and True, and He passes judgment and wages war in righteousness (holiness, justice, and uprightness).12 His eyes [blaze] like a flame of fire, and on His head are many kingly crowns (diadems); and He has a title (name) inscribed which He alone knows or can understand.13 He is dressed in a robe dyed by [c]dipping in blood, and the title by which He is called is The Word of God. ...and getting religious information from secular leftist government subsidized PBS is like getting information about the Holocaust from Amahdinejad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Your reply doesn't answer the question, moralist.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Your reply doesn't answer the question, moralist.EllenOf course not, Ellen. That's because you need to ask your question of those who translated the Amplified Bible. I can't speak on their behalf... only for myself.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dldelancey Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible has a very good discussion, based on historical/critical study of the Bible, regarding the conclusion that John was referring to Jesus when he spoke of The Word. It also examines who John might actually have been and why he might have made that claim. If I recall correctly, it had a lot to do with 1) attempting to clarify contradictions in other books of the New Testament, and 2) laying some ground work for the Holy Trinity. It's been a while since I've read it, though, so I might be mistaken on point 2.Ellen, there is scholarly support for the conclusion that for John the Word = Jesus Christ. This is just one book that supports that conclusion. I know nothing of the version of the Bible Greg references, though, so I can't speak to that specifically.Also, in regards to the Gospel of John being hostile towards Judaism, historically speaking that gospel seems to have been written during a time when a certain sect of Christians were attempting to make a shift from the "Religion Of Jesus" to the "Religion About Jesus." I don't remember the name of that sect, but they were trying to move away from Jewish law. This would explain the perceived hostility towards Judaism. I say perceived because I personally don't think John was that hostile, especially in comparison to some other books of his era that didn't make it into the canon for the very reason that they were quite hostile indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 It's the beginning of the Old Testament, so it isn't a reference to Christ. It's in the New Testament and it is a reference to Christ. John 1:1Amplified Bible (AMP)1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.The original language of the Gospel according to John was Greek. "Logos" is the Greek word translated as "Word." "Logos" was an embracing term, encompassing "ordering principle" generally.How do the Amplified Bible people arrive at this term being equated with Christ?In a quick and unsuccessful Google to try to find some background on that interpretation, I came across this discussion of the differences between John and the synoptic gospelshttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.htmlThe Gospel of JohnEmbedded in the so-called "spiritual gospel" is an architectural hostility toward Judaism.The material is part of a Connecticut PBS "Frontline" series From Jesus to Christ.EllenHow do the Amplified Bible people arrive at this term being equated with Christ?That is not the only New testament source referring to Christ as the Word of God. Here is a far more graphic direct reference to Christ: Revelation 19:11-13 11 After that I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse [appeared]! The One Who was riding it is called Faithful (Trustworthy, Loyal, Incorruptible, Steady) and True, and He passes judgment and wages war in righteousness (holiness, justice, and uprightness).12 His eyes [blaze] like a flame of fire, and on His head are many kingly crowns (diadems); and He has a title (name) inscribed which He alone knows or can understand.13 He is dressed in a robe dyed by [c]dipping in blood, and the title by which He is called is The Word of God....and getting religious information from secular leftist government subsidized PBS is like getting information about the Holocaust from Amahdinejad.No, it is not. That is an outrageously false analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 It's the beginning of the Old Testament, so it isn't a reference to Christ. It's in the New Testament and it is a reference to Christ. John 1:1Amplified Bible (AMP)1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.The original language of the Gospel according to John was Greek. "Logos" is the Greek word translated as "Word." "Logos" was an embracing term, encompassing "ordering principle" generally.How do the Amplified Bible people arrive at this term being equated with Christ?In a quick and unsuccessful Google to try to find some background on that interpretation, I came across this discussion of the differences between John and the synoptic gospelshttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.htmlThe Gospel of JohnEmbedded in the so-called "spiritual gospel" is an architectural hostility toward Judaism.The material is part of a Connecticut PBS "Frontline" series From Jesus to Christ.EllenHow do the Amplified Bible people arrive at this term being equated with Christ?That is not the only New testament source referring to Christ as the Word of God. Here is a far more graphic direct reference to Christ: Revelation 19:11-13 11 After that I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse [appeared]! The One Who was riding it is called Faithful (Trustworthy, Loyal, Incorruptible, Steady) and True, and He passes judgment and wages war in righteousness (holiness, justice, and uprightness).12 His eyes [blaze] like a flame of fire, and on His head are many kingly crowns (diadems); and He has a title (name) inscribed which He alone knows or can understand.13 He is dressed in a robe dyed by [c]dipping in blood, and the title by which He is called is The Word of God....and getting religious information from secular leftist government subsidized PBS is like getting information about the Holocaust from Amahdinejad.No, it is not. That is an outrageously false analogy.This difference between our two views defines where we each put our trust. I don't trust secular liberal government grant funded sources... and you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 As far as verifiability , what if John was wrong , mistaken or just making it up, John was human , yes?He certainly could have been. I was solely commenting on the source of the verse, not on it's perceived veracity. That is purely a personal choice which has absolutely nothing to do with others.Veracity is a personal choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible has a very good discussion, based on historical/critical study of the Bible, regarding the conclusion that John was referring to Jesus when he spoke of The Word. [....]Deanna,Thanks for an informative reply.I ordered the book you cite.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 As far as verifiability , what if John was wrong , mistaken or just making it up, John was human , yes?He certainly could have been. I was solely commenting on the source of the verse, not on it's perceived veracity. That is purely a personal choice which has absolutely nothing to do with others.Veracity is a personal choice? No. Not veracity. Perceived veracity. It's purely a personal choice either to love truth or to love lies and call them truth. And each of us gets the consequences we deserve in our own life as our teacher to patiently show us moment by moment which is which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted August 11, 2013 Share Posted August 11, 2013 Coincidentally I read a fascinating article today about the sect which follows John the Baptist. the oldest surviving Gnostic community in the world. They are not Christians, they are a historical artefact with 100,000 adherents. soon to be destroyed like everything else worth preserving in that cursed country.The loss of their historical legacy, and their precious individual lives, will go up in flames like the destruction of the library at Alexandria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 11, 2013 Share Posted August 11, 2013 Coincidentally I read a fascinating article today about the sect which follows John the Baptist. the oldest surviving Gnostic community in the world. They are not Christians, they are a historical artefact with 100,000 adherents. soon to be destroyed like everything else worth preserving in that cursed country.The loss of their historical legacy, and their precious individual lives, will go up in flames like the destruction of the library at Alexandria.Several groups of bullies had there turn on the various libraries at Alexandria. The first disaster was during the reign of Cleopetra. The Romans had an armed struggle with the local Egyptian army and a fire got out of control.. Many hundreds of years later the Christians burned out the Serapium. and about 200 years after that Caliph Umar and the Muslims destroyed the remaining libraries. It would have been better if the Libraries survived and the gnostics did not. Gnosticism is nonsense on stilts.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now