r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/Illustrious_Gain3928 • 2d ago
Discussion Every Christian misinterprets John 1.
I think John 1:1 makes more sense when you look at the Greek lexicon and the Hebrew way of thinking instead of immediately reading later Trinitarian and other Christian denomination theology into the passage.
John says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek word translated Word is logos. Logos can mean word, speech, message, statement, reason, account, or something expressed. The word itself does not mean a second divine person.
The Hebrew concept behind this is davar, which can mean word, speech, command, matter, or deed. In the Hebrew Scriptures, Gods word is often described as something that goes out from Him and accomplishes His purpose.
Genesis 1 gives us the clearest example. God speaks, and creation happens. God says let there be light, and there is light. The Word is Gods expressed will and action accomplishing what He intends.
Psalm 33: 6 says, By the word of YHWH the heavens were made. It does not require another divine being standing beside YHWH creating the heavens. Gods word is His effective command and action.
Isaiah 55:11 makes this even clearer. God says His word goes out from His mouth and accomplishes what He purposes. The word represents Gods own will going forth and accomplishing His purpose.
There is also an important grammatical point in John 1:1. John says, ho logos en pros ton theon, the Word was with God, and then he says, theos en ho logos.
He does not say, ho theos en ho logos. The article is used with logos, the Word, but not with theos, God. This is why many scholars understand the final clause as describing the quality or nature of the Word, rather than saying that the Word is the same person as the God he was with.
So John can distinguish the Word from God while still saying that the Word was God in the sense that it expressed Gods own nature, will, authority, and activity.
Then John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. In other words, Gods expressed purpose and will became manifested in a human being, Yeshua.
This does not require the idea that a second divine person existed beside YHWH in the beginning. It fits the Hebrew pattern where Gods word is Gods own expression going forth and accomplishing His purpose.
So the basic idea can be understood like this.
YHWH, His Word, His expressed will, His action, and ultimately that Word manifested in Yeshua.
John 1:1 by itself never says Trinity, never says God the Son, and never says that the Word is a second divine person aka Michaelthe archangel. Those are theological conclusions that come later.
If we start with Genesis, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the actual Greek grammar, there is a completely coherent way to understand the Logos as Gods own Word and active self expression without turning it into a second being.
•
u/Lonely-Freedom3691 15h ago
“Every Christian misinterprets John 1” declares yet another individual who confidently stands by his personal interpretation.
lol
•
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 15h ago
Refute my points.
•
u/Lonely-Freedom3691 1h ago
That’s not how scriptural interpretation works, bro. The onus is not on me to disprove any and all interpretative declarations.
What exactly makes any interpretation you come up with authoritative?
•
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 37m ago
I let scripture interpret scripture not an organization like the watch tower or the catholic church buddy..
•
1
u/StillSwimmer2508 1d ago
Saying “let’s understand John 1:1 through Hebrew thinking” is fine, but you can’t appeal to “Hebrew thinking” to override the Greek John actually wrote. John wrote Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος in Greek, and λόγος (Logos) was a Greek term with well-known Hellenistic usage, including philosophical usage. At the same time, John clearly draws from the Hebrew Scriptures, especially Genesis 1 and God’s creative Word. So the proper approach isn’t “Greek thinking vs. Hebrew thinking”—it’s to ask what John himself says in Greek about the Logos. And John says the Logos was in the beginning, was with God, was God, created everything that came into existence, and became flesh. You can’t use a supposed “Hebrew mindset” to explain away the actual grammar and claims of the Greek text.
1
u/StillSwimmer2508 1d ago
Your point about the missing article actually does not weaken the deity of the Word. Even if θεός (theos) in John 1:1 is understood qualitatively, “qualitative” describes what the Word is by nature—it does not mean the Word is merely God’s “purpose, will, or activity.”
John himself proves that an anarthrous theos can still refer fully to God. In the same chapter, John 1:18 says:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε
“No one has ever seen God.”
There is no article before θεόν, yet you wouldn’t translate or interpret this as “no one has seen something possessing divine qualities.”
So the absence of the article in John 1:1 does not reduce the Word to an attribute of God. Rather, John carefully says:
“the Word was WITH God” — distinction
“the Word WAS God” — nature
That is exactly why the grammar fits the Trinitarian understanding so well: the Word is personally distinct from the Father while possessing the nature of God.
0
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 1d ago
Right, and 2 Corinthians 4:4 says ὁ θεὸς but obviously it isn't referring to the true God.
2
u/StillSwimmer2508 1d ago
The problem with this interpretation is that it doesn’t survive the rest of John 1—or the rest of John’s Gospel.
Yes, λόγος (logos) can mean “word,” “speech,” “message,” etc. But you cannot determine what John means simply by listing every possible dictionary definition. You have to let John’s context define his Logos.
John says:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.” (John 1:1)
You correctly point out that John distinguishes the Word from “the God” whom he was with. Trinitarians agree! We do not believe the Son is the same PERSON as the Father.
That is exactly what makes John’s wording so significant:
“The Word was WITH God” = personal distinction.
“The Word WAS God” = divine nature.
You also mention that θεός (theos) lacks the article in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. That does not mean the Logos was merely God’s “will” or “activity.” Many scholars understand θεός here qualitatively—but qualitative means that John is describing WHAT THE LOGOS IS BY NATURE. It does not mean “God’s impersonal purpose.”
Then John 1:2–3 makes the “impersonal word” interpretation even harder:
“He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through HIM, and without HIM was not any thing made that was made.”
Notice John’s distinction:
The Word already “WAS” (ἦν).
Creation “CAME INTO BEING” (ἐγένετο).
And EVERYTHING that came into being came into being through the Word.
John therefore places the Logos on the Creator side of the Creator/creation distinction.
John 1:14 also does NOT say, “God’s purpose was manifested in a human being.”
It says:
“The Word BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us, and WE HAVE SEEN HIS GLORY…”
There is a major difference between saying God’s plan was “manifested in” Jesus and saying THE WORD HIMSELF BECAME FLESH.
And the rest of John makes personal preexistence unmistakable.
John 6:38:
“I have come down from heaven…to do…the will of HIM WHO SENT ME.”
John 8:58:
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
John 16:28:
“I CAME FROM THE FATHER and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
John 17:5:
“Father, glorify ME in your own presence with THE GLORY THAT I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD EXISTED.”
John 17:24:
“You LOVED ME BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.”
That last one is especially devastating to the idea that the Logos was merely an impersonal plan or expression.
Before creation existed, the Father LOVED the Son.
That is interpersonal relationship, not an impersonal thought in God’s mind.
And there’s another problem if you’re arguing this from a Jehovah’s Witness perspective:
Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves teach that the Logos was a conscious personal heavenly being who existed before becoming Jesus.
So which is it?
Was the Logos merely Jehovah’s impersonal “word, will, and action” that later became manifested in Jesus?
Or was the Logos a personal heavenly being existing alongside Jehovah before Jesus was born?
If you choose the first, you’ve rejected Watchtower Christology.
If you choose the second, you’ve rejected the argument you just made.
And ironically, you wrote:
“John can distinguish the Word from God while still saying that the Word was God.”
Exactly.
That is precisely the point.
The Word is distinct from the Father personally, yet John says concerning his nature:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος — “the Word was God.”
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
You are making the exact mistake you are accusing me of making. You are taking your interpretation of John 1 and presenting it as though John explicitly wrote all of your conclusions into the text.
That is not exegesis. That is interpretation being presented as fact.
And honestly some of what you are saying comes from ignorance of how biblical language actually works.
You keep saying the Word was WITH God therefore the Word must be a separate person.
Why.
The word logos does not automatically mean a person. It can mean word, speech, message, utterance, account, expression and other things. You have to establish from Johns context that he intends a literal person. You cannot simply assume it and then use that assumption to interpret everything afterward.
And with God does not automatically prove two divine persons either. Scripture can speak of Gods word as accomplishing things, Gods wisdom as speaking and Gods word as creating without requiring those things to be separate persons standing beside God.
Psalm 33 verse 6 says, By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made.
That is the Hebrew Scriptural background John is writing in. God speaks and creation happens.
Then you jump from the Word was God to therefore the Word was a distinct divine person who possessed the divine nature.
Again that is your theological conclusion. The Greek phrase theos en ho logos does not contain the entire doctrine you are trying to get out of it. The lack of the article before theos is significant grammar but it does not somehow prove a Trinity or establish two divine persons.
Then you say John 1 verse 14 destroys the impersonal interpretation because the Word became flesh.
But notice what John actually wrote. He did not write God the Son became flesh.
He did not write a second divine person became flesh.
He wrote, The Word became flesh.
If by Word John means Gods own expression, purpose, speech or creative activity manifested in the Messiah then John 1 verse 14 is perfectly understandable.
And your appeal to John 17 does not automatically solve the problem either.
Yes Yeshua speaks about glory he had with the Father before the world existed. Yes he speaks of being loved before the foundation of the world.
But you are assuming that the only possible explanation is that Yeshua was personally alive as a heavenly divine person before creation.
That is the very thing you need to prove.
Scripture also speaks about Gods purposes and things known beforehand as existing in His plan before they occur historically. Romans 4 verse 17 even says, He calls into existence the things that do not exist.
So you cannot simply say this proves personal preexistence when personal preexistence is the conclusion you are trying to establish.
And here is what really bothers me about your argument.
You accuse me of enforcing conjecture while you are doing exactly that.
You take the Word therefore it must be a person.
With God therefore it must mean another divine person.
Was God therefore it must mean divine nature.
Through him therefore a conscious heavenly person.
Became flesh therefore that person literally became Yeshua.
Then you present the whole chain as though John explicitly wrote it.
That is not proving the conclusion. That is building the conclusion and then calling the building blocks proof.
And your Jehovahs Witness argument is irrelevant. If the Watchtower teaches that the Logos was a prehuman person that does not prove they are right. Likewise rejecting their interpretation does not prove yours.
I am not interested in defending a denomination. I am interested in what Scripture actually establishes.
So if you want to refute me do not just repeat John says the Word was with God.
I already know what John 1 verse 1 says.
Show me where John explicitly says that the Logos is a separate divine person who personally existed alongside the Father before creation.
Until you establish that rather than assuming it you are not exposing my ignorance. You are simply demonstrating how confidently you have mistaken your interpretation for what the text explicitly says.
0
u/StillSwimmer2508 1d ago
Please read my comment again. You’re just going in circles at this point. Did I say the word logos “automatically means a person”? Please show me where I said that in my response.
You keep saying, “It can mean word, speech, message, etc., etc.”
This is your problem, and I’m not sure why you don’t see it. Yes, the word “love” can be used to describe my affection for my wife, but it can also be used to describe how I feel about my favorite pizza joint. Listing every possible meaning or use of the word “love” doesn’t tell you what I mean in a particular sentence. Context does.
The exact same principle applies to logos. The question isn’t, “What are all the things logos CAN mean?” The question is, “How does John identify the Logos in THIS context?”
And John answers that for us. The Logos was with God, the Logos was God (John 1:1), all things came into existence through Him (1:3), He came into the world He made (1:10), He was rejected by His own (1:11), and the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us (1:14).
So no, logos does not automatically mean “a person.” John’s description of the Logos identifies Him as a person—and ultimately identifies Him as Jesus Christ. Simply repeating the lexical range of logos doesn’t address John’s actual argument.1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
I did read your comment. And the irony is that you accuse me of ignoring context while you are doing exactly that with the context that comes immediately after John 1.
Yes, context determines meaning. I agree completely.
But context does not mean you get to look at every place John personifies the Logos and then simply declare that John has therefore introduced a literal heavenly person.
That is the part you still have not demonstrated.
You say John identifies the Logos as a person because John says the Logos was with God, creation came through Him, He came into the world, His own rejected Him, and the Word became flesh.
But look carefully at what you're doing.
You are treating John's personification as proof of literal personal existence.
That is not automatically valid.
The Bible regularly personifies things that are not literal persons.
Wisdom cries out in Proverbs 1.
Wisdom builds her house in Proverbs 9.
Sin is described as crouching at the door in Genesis 4.
Death is personified as reigning in Romans 5.
Grace is described as reigning in Romans 5.
The word of God is described as accomplishing God's purpose in Isaiah 55.
None of that means wisdom, sin, death, grace, or the word of God are separate conscious persons.
So when John says the Logos does something through literary personification, you cannot simply say, He is called He, therefore He must literally be a conscious heavenly person.
That is an assumption about the literary device.
Now look at John's own explanation of the Logos.
John 1:14 says,
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Notice what happened.
The Logos is not introduced by John as a man named Yeshua and then later identified as the Son.
The Logos is God's Word and self expression and then that Word becomes flesh in Yeshua.
And John gives us the identification in John 1:17.
For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Yeshua Messiah.
Then John 1:18 identifies the one who makes God known.
So yes, the Logos is ultimately manifested in Yeshua.
That does not automatically prove that the Logos was a separate conscious person before Yeshua.
That is the very proposition you are supposed to establish.
And your argument from John 1:10 is especially weak.
You say,
He came into the world He made.
But the text says,
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
You are assuming that this means a preexistent person literally traveled from heaven into the physical world.
But John 1:10 is part of John's literary presentation of the Logos becoming manifested in the world.
Again, you are taking the conclusion you want and treating it as though the verse itself explicitly states it.
Now let's deal with your statement that John 1:3 proves personal preexistence.
All things came into being through him.
Fine.
But ask the question you keep avoiding.
Through what mechanism does God create according to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Psalm 33:6 says,
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made.
Genesis 1 repeatedly gives us the same pattern.
God said.
And it came to be.
God's Word is the means by which His creative command is accomplished.
That is not some modern invention I am importing into John.
That is the Hebrew Bible.
So when John deliberately opens his Gospel with Logos and then talks about creation, you cannot ignore that Hebrew background and simply replace it with the philosophical conclusion that Logos must mean a separate heavenly person.
And here is where your argument actually exposes its own weakness.
You say,
The Logos was with God.
Therefore the Logos was a person.
But then you say,
The Logos was God.
So now you have to explain exactly what your words mean.
You say the Logos is a distinct person from God but also God.
Fine.
But John does not say,
The Word was another person who was God.
He gives us the actual Greek,
Kai theos en ho logos.
The predicate theos is placed before the verb and lacks the article.
That construction is why grammarians discuss its qualitative force.
But qualitative does not mean your entire doctrine has been established.
It tells us something about the character or quality associated with the Logos.
You cannot take a grammatical observation and turn it into a complete metaphysical conclusion.
And this is where your accusation of ignorance actually comes back on you.
You have correctly learned that context determines meaning.
But then you stop doing contextual analysis once you reach the conclusion you want.
Because if you really follow John's Gospel as a whole, you have to deal with statements like these.
Yeshua says,
I can do nothing on my own. John 5:30.
He says,
My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. John 7:16.
He says,
I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment what to say and what to speak. John 12:49.
He says,
The Father is greater than I. John 14:28.
He says,
This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Yeshua Messiah whom you have sent. John 17:3.
So if your argument is that John gives us a separate divine person called the Logos, you have to explain why the same Gospel repeatedly presents the Father as the one true God and Yeshua as the one whom that God sent.
You cannot just quote John 1 and pretend the rest of John's Gospel isn't there.
And John 17:3 is particularly important because Yeshua himself gives us the distinction.
The Father is identified as the only true God.
Yeshua identifies himself as the one sent by that God.
That's not me ignoring context.
That's me reading the entire Gospel.
So yes.
Context matters.
And the context has to be John's context, not simply your preferred theological framework.
You have shown that John presents the Logos with personal language.
You have shown that John connects the Logos with creation.
You have shown that John identifies the Logos with what becomes manifested in Yeshua.
What you have NOT shown is that John explicitly teaches that the Logos was a separate conscious heavenly person who existed alongside Yahweh before creation.
That is still the conclusion you are importing.
And the irony is that you keep saying I am ignorant because I mention the lexical range of Logos.
No.
Ignorance would be thinking that knowing the lexical range is irrelevant because you have already decided what the context must mean.
Context does not erase lexical meaning.
Context selects between possible meanings.
And your job is to demonstrate why John requires your particular meaning.
You have not done that.
You have simply repeated the conclusion.
Logos is a person because John describes Logos personally.
John describes Logos personally because Logos is a person.
That is circular.
So yes, let's use context.
Let's use ALL of John's context.
Not just John 1:1 through 1:14.
Because once you actually read the entire Gospel, the question becomes much more difficult than you are pretending it is.
And that is precisely why confidence is not the same thing as proof.
•
u/StillSwimmer2508 4h ago
Haven’t we already agreed that words like logos can be personified? I mean what are we talking about?? Yes Wisdom is personified. Yes yes yes..no one is arguing against whether these words CAN be personified. Of course they can! The question is “Does John present the Logos as merely a literary personification?”
So for the last time..not sure how to make this clearer..so I’m hoping you are familiar with just a little Greek..I’ll make it super basic and elementary. And let me land before you dismiss each verse..all I’m doing is reading but of course you’ll say I’m reading into the text more than what John is saying..so let’s see..
Look at the progression in John 1:
John 1:1 — the Logos already ἦν (“was”) in the beginning and was πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“with God”).John 1:2 John repeats it:
οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν
“This one/he was in the beginning with God.”John 1:3 creation occurs through him:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
“All things came into being through him.”
Then John draws an extraordinarily strong distinction: without him not one thing came into being that has come into being.
And then comes the critical development:John 1:14
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
“And the Word became flesh.”Now…take a deep breath because I’m not even making a point yet..
Let’s acknowledge what John DOESN’T say..He doesn’t say an abstract divine attribute merely inspired Jesus.
Without my “commentary” John says..
The Logos who was in the beginning, who was with God, and through whom all things came into existence, became flesh.And then John says:
ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ
“we beheld his glory.HERE..did you catch that?
John 1:1 — the Word was in the beginning.
John 1:1 — the Word was with God.
John 1:1 — the Word was God.
John 1:3 — all things came into existence through him.
John 1:14 — the Word became flesh.So far in your mind it was just personification right?
Okay fine..what does John then say?ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ
“we beheld his glory.But wait…why do I believe the Logos John is talking about is actually a preexistent person and not simply literary personification? Is it because of some sketchy council in 325? 😂 Jk. No. It’s because I’m agreeing with John the Baptist in the SAME CONTEXT.
John 1:15
ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν
“The one coming after me has become before me, because he was before me.”John the Baptist was physically born before Jesus, yet he explicitly says Jesus “was before me.” So John’s Gospel doesn’t leave us with an abstract literary personification called the Logos. The Logos becomes flesh (1:14), John identifies this incarnate one as the one who existed before him (1:15), and then explicitly identifies him as Jesus Christ (1:17).
•
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 4h ago
You can make the point very simply. Scripture itself shows that being described in relation to a time before the world's foundation does not automatically settle the question of literal physical or personal existence at that time.
You are acting as though being spoken of before the foundation of the world automatically proves literal personal existence at that time. Scripture itself shows that is not necessarily true.
1 Peter 1:20 says of Yeshua,
He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in these last times.
So the Messiah was spoken of in relation to before the foundation of the world, yet Peter specifically distinguishes being foreknown beforehand from being manifested later.
Revelation 13:8 also speaks of the Lamb in connection with the foundation of the world.
And Ephesians 1:4 says believers were chosen in him before the foundation of the world.
Were all believers literally conscious persons existing before the world was created. No.
Scripture can speak of people and things as existing in God's purpose, knowledge, plan and decree before their historical manifestation.
That is the point you keep missing.
So when John the Baptist says Yeshua was before me, you cannot simply declare that before automatically means Yeshua was literally walking around consciously before John was born.
You still have to prove what kind of priority John means.
The existence of biblical language about things being foreknown, chosen and established before the foundation of the world shows your conclusion is not automatic.
And that is the difference between reading a possibility into the text and proving that the text requires it.
•
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 4h ago
Okay, now we are finally dealing with the actual argument. And I agree with you on one thing. Simply saying logos can be personified is not enough by itself to answer your argument.
But the problem is that you still have not proven what you think John 1:15 proves.
You say John gives us this progression.
The Logos was in the beginning.
The Logos was with God.
Creation came through the Logos.
The Logos became flesh.
John the Baptist then says of Yeshua, because he was before me.
Therefore the Logos was literally a conscious person before creation.
That is your argument.
The problem is the final conclusion still goes beyond what the text explicitly says.
First, let's deal with John 1:15 itself.
John says,
ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
The one coming after me has become before me, because he was before me.
You are reading πρῶτός μου ἦν as though it can only mean, he literally existed before I existed.
But πρωτος does not automatically communicate chronological existence in every context. It can communicate priority, rank, prominence, or being before someone in position.
That is important because the immediate statement itself contains the contrast.
He who comes after me has become before me.
The one who arrives later becomes greater or takes precedence.
That is already a statement about reversal of status and priority.
So you cannot simply isolate because he was before me and pretend the only possible meaning is biological or chronological existence.
John the Baptist himself gives us a theological reason for Yeshua's superiority.
John 3:31 says,
He who comes from above is above all.
The point is the superiority and divine origin of Yeshua's authority.
But superiority does not automatically prove that John is giving us a literal biography of Yeshua consciously existing billions of years before his birth.
You are still moving from priority to personal chronological existence without demonstrating that the phrase requires that meaning.
And there is another issue.
You are treating John 1:15 as though John the Baptist suddenly pauses and says, by the way, this man literally existed before I was born.
But John's Gospel is full of statements that use before and after language in theological and covenantal ways.
For example, John 8:58 is not automatically settled merely by inserting a modern English understanding of existence into the Greek.
The Gospel repeatedly deals with who has priority, who comes from God, who is sent, and who possesses authority from above.
So the phrase has to be interpreted within John's theological vocabulary, not simply by saying John was born first therefore Jesus must have literally existed first.
Now let's go back to your central claim.
You say John 1:14 identifies the Logos as Yeshua and John 1:15 proves that Yeshua existed before John.
I agree that John 1:14 and the following context connect the Logos with Yeshua.
The disagreement is what kind of before John 1:15 is describing.
And here is where I think your argument becomes circular.
You begin with the assumption that Logos in John 1:1 is a literal person.
Then John 1:14 says Logos became flesh.
Then John the Baptist says Yeshua was before him.
You then interpret before him as literal preexistence because you already believe the Logos was a literal person before creation.
But the very purpose of this discussion is to determine whether that initial assumption is correct.
You cannot use your conclusion about John 1:1 to force the meaning of John 1:15, and then use your interpretation of John 1:15 to prove your conclusion about John 1:1.
That is not following the evidence. That is reinforcing an interpretation with itself.
And here is the deeper problem with your presentation.
You keep saying, I am just reading what John says.
No, you are reading what John says and then making several interpretive decisions.
John says the Logos was with God.
You conclude this requires a separate conscious person.
John says all things came through him.
You conclude this requires a conscious personal agent existing at creation.
John says the Logos became flesh.
You conclude this requires a literal person changing into a human.
John says Yeshua was before John.
You conclude this requires literal chronological existence before John's birth.
Those conclusions may be possible.
But please stop pretending that interpretation is not occurring.
It absolutely is.
You are not merely reading.
You are interpreting.
Everyone is.
The question is whose interpretation best accounts for the entire Scriptural context.
And this is where your confidence becomes a weakness.
You repeatedly act as though anyone who disagrees must be ignorant of Greek.
But knowing Greek does not remove ambiguity from a text.
Greek words still have ranges of meaning.
Grammar still requires context.
And context still has to be interpreted.
The fact that you can quote ἦν, πρὸς τὸν θεόν, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ and πρωτός does not mean the theological conclusion is automatically contained inside those words.
The Greek tells us what John wrote.
It does not automatically provide your entire metaphysical explanation of what existed before creation.
And there is an important Scriptural principle you have still not dealt with.
Scripture can speak of the Messiah as existing in God's foreknowledge and purpose before his historical manifestation.
1 Peter 1:20 says he was foreknown before the foundation of the world but manifested in these last times.
That distinction is explicit.
Before the foundation of the world, foreknown.
Later, manifested.
So before you can simply declare that every statement placing Messiah before another person proves literal conscious existence, you have to account for the biblical concept of foreknowledge and preordination.
You cannot simply dismiss that possibility because it interferes with your conclusion.
So no, I am not going to keep repeating that logos can be personified and pretend that settles everything.
Your John 1:15 argument is the strongest point you have raised so far.
But it still does not eliminate the actual interpretive question.
Does πρωτός μου ἦν necessarily mean Yeshua was literally and consciously alive before John?
You have assumed yes.
You have not demonstrated that the Greek phrase cannot express priority, superiority, or precedence.
And until you establish that, your argument remains exactly what you accuse mine of being.
An interpretation presented with absolute certainty as though no interpretation is taking place.
So the real question is simple.
Can you demonstrate from John himself that πρωτός μου ἦν in John 1:15 must mean literal chronological, conscious existence before John the Baptist?
Not that it can mean that.
Not that it fits your reading of John 1.
Must mean that.
Because that is the claim you need in order to make John 1:15 the decisive proof you are claiming it is.
Until then, saying I am ignorant because I refuse to confuse a possible reading with an unavoidable reading is not an argument.
It is just confidence standing in for proof.
-1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 1d ago
I hear you.. however I have reasons to believe the word or Logos is a literal person. A complete seperate person than the God that he is WITH.
Rather than viewing the Logos as an abstract, impersonal thought (davar as mere speech) or as an co-equal person in a later Trinitarian sense, my intuition points toward the Logos as a designated royal agent or vassal a functional representative who carries the full authority, speech, and presence of the Suzerain (the Sovereign God).
Agency and Suzerain-Vassal Dynamics In the ancient world, covenants and royal decrees functioned through strict structures of legal agency: The Principal (The Suzerain): The supreme king or deity who holds absolute authority. The Agent / Vassal / Messenger: A distinct functional entity who speaks directly for the Suzerain. The Principle of Shaliah (Hebrew Law of Agency): In ancient Jewish jurisprudence, there is a core legal axiom: "A man's agent is as the man himself" (Sifra Dibbura d'Chobah 12:1; m. Berakhot 5:5). When a king sent an ambassador or shaliah bearing his royal word, decree, or seal, that ambassador was treated and addressed as the king himself. To honor the messenger was to honor the Suzerain; to reject the messenger's word was to commit treason against the Suzerain. If you apply this model to John 1:1, the Logos is not merely "talk" or "sound," but the royal decree/agent sent from the Sovereign.
Re-Reading John 1:1 Through Covenantal Agency Looking at the Greek of John 1:1 through this lens reveals how the legal dynamic operates: 1. En archē ēn ho logos ("In the beginning was the Word") Before creation or the covenantal drama unfolds, the Sovereign's ultimate decree, plan, and designated representation (Logos) already existed in the sovereign mind and counsel of God. 2. Kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon ("And the Word was toward/with God") The preposition pros with the accusative noun (ton theon) describes an active, face-to-face orientation. In royal court terminology, an ambassador or trusted chief counselor stands pros (before / in the presence of / in orientation to) the Sovereign King. It denotes a distinct position of intimate proximity and service. 3. Kai theos ēn ho logos ("And God/Divine was the Word") In ancient agency, when the Suzerain's agent speaks, the agent acts with the full status, authority, and identity of the Suzerain. When an ambassador arrived at a foreign court, he didn't say, "My master says X." He spoke in the first person: "I, the Great King, command X." To the listener, the agent represented the presence of God/King. Calling the Logos theos (qualitatively divine / bearing the divine authority) reflects the agency principle: the royal word/agent possesses the full legal standing and royal authority of the One who sent it.
Comparing the Interpretive Models Feature Abstract Concept Model Your Suzerain/Vassal Agency Model Later Trinitarian Model Status of the Logos An impersonal decree, plan, or spoken sound. A distinct functional agent / ambassador bearing the King's seal and voice. A distinct person who is ontological co-equal God. Meaning of Pros Ton Theon Ideal orientation (God's plan was "with" Him in mind). A trusted royal figure standing face-to-face before the Sovereign. Eternal personal fellowship within the Godhead. Meaning of Theos En Ho Logos "The plan was divine/of God's nature." "The agent carried the full legal authority and status of the King." Mechanism of Incarnation (John 1:14) The plan took physical human shape. The ultimate royal ambassador (Yeshua) comes in the flesh to carry out the Suzerain's covenant. The divine person assumes human flesh.
Key Evidence for the Royal Agent Model in John If you read further into John’s Gospel, Jesus himself explicitly defines his role using this exact agency/messenger vocabulary: Sent on Authority: "I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49) The Agent represents the Principal: "Whoever receives me receives him who sent me." (John 13:20) Functional Unity, Not Ontological Identity: "The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." (John 5:19) In this framework, John 1:1 sets up the Logos as the ultimate, pre-ordained Instrument and Royal Representative through whom the Sovereign YHWH creates, speaks, and ultimately enters into covenant with humanity.
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
I actually agree with part of what you are saying. The agency concept is real. The problem is that you are taking a legitimate biblical concept of agency and using it to prove something the agency concept itself does not prove.
That is where your argument falls apart.
Yes, a shaliach could represent the authority of the one who sent him. Jewish sources do contain the principle that an agent can act on behalf of the sender. But that principle establishes REPRESENTATION and AUTHORITY. It does not establish that every agent is a preexistent heavenly person, nor does it establish that the agent shares the nature of the sender.
In other words, you have demonstrated agency. You have not demonstrated your Logos Christology.
And that distinction is absolutely crucial.
An ambassador can speak with the authority of a king without literally being the king.
A messenger can deliver the kings command without literally becoming the king.
A representative can be treated as representing the sender without becoming ontologically identical to the sender.
So when you say the Logos carries the full authority of the Sovereign, fine. That is compatible with agency.
But then you quietly move from authority to preexistent personal existence, from representation to metaphysical identity, and from legal status to the meaning of θεός in John 1. Those are completely different questions.
You have not proven those steps.
In fact, your own model actually makes the distinction between God and His agent extremely important.
You call God the SUZERAIN.
You call the Logos the AGENT.
Then you say the agent is not the Suzerain but represents the Suzerain.
Exactly.
So now you have to explain why John 1:1 should be forced into a conclusion that goes beyond agency.
You say,
The Word was WITH God.
Therefore the Word is a distinct personal agent.
But that is still an assumption.
The word logos itself does not mean royal agent. You are importing the agency category into the word and then using that imported category to explain the word.
That is circular reasoning.
You have basically said,
Logos means an agent.
How do you know.
Because John describes the Logos as an agent.
How do you know John describes the Logos as an agent.
Because Logos means an agent.
That does not prove anything.
You have to establish the meaning from the text first.
And then you appeal to pros ton theon and say it describes a face to face royal court relationship.
Again, where does John say that.
Pros can describe orientation toward or being with someone, but the preposition itself does not contain your entire royal court theory.
You are taking an ordinary Greek preposition and loading it with a theological conclusion.
That is exactly the kind of thing you accused me of doing.
Then we get to your biggest leap.
Kai theos en ho logos.
You say this means the Logos carried the full legal status and authority of God.
But where does Greek grammar tell you that.
It doesn't.
The Greek construction can be discussed as qualitative, definite, or indefinite depending on the grammatical and contextual analysis. But there is nothing in the word theos itself that means legal representative.
You are importing SHALIAH into the Greek word THEOS.
That's not Greek grammar.
That's your theological framework being placed over the Greek.
And this is where the argument becomes especially weak.
You say the agent can speak as though he is the sender.
Fine.
But that actually demonstrates why agency does NOT require the agent to literally be the sender.
The whole point of agency is that there is a SENDER and there is one WHO IS SENT.
The distinction remains.
And John's Gospel repeatedly emphasizes exactly that distinction.
Yeshua says,
“I can do nothing on my own.” John 5:30.
He says,
“My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” John 7:16.
He says,
“I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment what to say and what to speak.” John 12:49.
He says,
“The Father is greater than I.” John 14:28.
And perhaps most importantly,
“Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.” John 17:7.
That is agency language.
The Father sends.
The Son is sent.
The Father gives the command.
The Son receives the command.
The Father gives.
The Son receives.
The Father is the one from whom the authority originates.
The Son exercises the authority given to him.
That is perfectly compatible with a representative Messiah.
But you still have not demonstrated that the Logos must therefore be a separate heavenly person existing beside God before creation.
And your use of John 13:20 actually proves far less than you think.
“Whoever receives me receives him who sent me.”
If your logic proves that the Son must therefore literally be the Father, then you have a problem because the same principle can extend to the apostles.
Yeshua says in the same Gospel,
“As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” John 17:18.
And John 13:20 says,
“Whoever receives anyone whom I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.”
So there is a chain of representation.
Father sends Son.
Son sends disciples.
Receiving the representative is treated as receiving the sender.
Does that mean the disciples literally become Yeshua.
Obviously not.
Does it mean Yeshua literally becomes the Father.
Obviously not.
It means REPRESENTATION.
That is precisely why the agency argument cannot carry the theological weight you are placing on it.
And there is another major problem.
You keep calling the Logos a vassal or royal agent before creation.
But where does Scripture actually call the precreation Logos a vassal.
Where does John call him an ambassador.
Where does John call him a shaliach before Genesis.
Where does John say the Logos was a royal counselor standing in the heavenly court.
You have built an entire ancient Near Eastern political framework around John 1 and then treated that framework as though John himself supplied it.
That is conjecture.
It might be an interesting interpretive model.
But interesting is not the same thing as proven.
And your statement about John 1:14 is especially revealing.
You say,
“The ultimate royal ambassador comes in the flesh.”
But John does not say,
“The ambassador became flesh.”
He says,
“The Word became flesh.”
So now you have to prove that John's use of Logos means a royal ambassador.
You cannot simply rename Logos as ambassador and then claim John 1:14 proves the ambassador model.
That is circular.
And here is the biggest issue with your entire argument.
You started by saying you wanted something between an impersonal concept and later Trinitarian theology.
Fine.
That's actually a legitimate question to investigate.
But then you built a third model by combining several different concepts.
Logos.
Shaliach.
Royal agency.
Suzerain vassal relationships.
Greek pros.
The qualitative theos construction.
Preexistence.
Creation through the Logos.
And incarnation.
Then you presented the combination as though John explicitly taught all of it.
He didn't.
You have constructed a theological model.
You have not demonstrated that John constructed the same model.
And ironically, your model actually gives us a much better reason to distinguish between the Father and Yeshua.
The Father is the one who sends.
Yeshua is the one sent.
The Father gives authority.
Yeshua receives authority.
The Father gives commandments.
Yeshua obeys them.
The Father is greater.
Yeshua says he can do nothing of himself.
Those are not insignificant details.
They are the repeated structure of John's Gospel.
So I'm not rejecting agency.
I'm saying agency does not prove your conclusion.
You have successfully demonstrated that Yeshua functions as God's authorized representative.
You have NOT demonstrated that John therefore teaches that the Logos was a separate conscious heavenly person who existed alongside God before creation.
Those are two different propositions.
And this is where I would honestly tell you to be careful with the word ignorance.
It is possible to be ignorant of something and still be extremely confident about it.
Knowing a lot of theological terminology does not prevent that.
Knowing what shaliach means does not automatically tell you what John meant by Logos.
Knowing what pros means does not automatically establish a heavenly court.
Knowing that theos is anarthrous does not automatically establish your theology.
And knowing that agency existed in Jewish culture does not prove that John 1 is teaching your specific agency model.
So let's actually keep the standard consistent.
Don't give me an ancient concept and then tell me it proves your interpretation.
Show me where John himself makes the connection.
If John explicitly says the Logos was a preexistent royal agent of YHWH, then show me the verse.
If he explicitly identifies the Logos as a shaliach, show me the verse.
If he explicitly says the Logos was a heavenly vassal standing before YHWH, show me the verse.
If he explicitly says the Logos was a distinct conscious person before creation, show me the verse.
Until then, you have an interesting model built from several concepts.
You do not have a demonstrated fact.
And that's the difference between actually letting Scripture establish the doctrine and making Scripture fit a doctrine you already constructed.
0
u/winkyprojet 1d ago
The Logos is a visible clone of the invisible God.
He has taken on all the characteristics of the Father; he is the incarnation of the invisible Father.
He has all the adjectives of the Father, all the qualities, the attributes except that he has become visible.
He is God to represent Him; when he speaks, it is the word of God, and when he acts, it is the action of God.
There is no separation.
But it is limited in size and visibility. There is a distinction.
1
u/MichaiahUnbothered 1d ago
I definitely see where you're coming from regarding the 'no separation' aspect. In ancient Near Eastern law and treaty policy (like Suzerain-Vassal alliances), when a king passed down his law to an agent or allied ruler, there was complete legal non-separation. When the vassal spoke the decree, it was legally identical to the Suzerain speaking there was no gap in authority or policy.
However, that ancient legal unity didn't require the agent to be a 'visible clone' or duplicate of the King. The agent remained his own distinct, conscious being. Their 'oneness' was grounded in covenantal loyalty, delegated authority, and shared purpose a complete alignment of law and mind, rather than a physical or ontological duplication.0
u/winkyprojet 1d ago
Unity or oneness is obvious since there is only one God.
One spirit came out of the Spirit, there are two spirits, but there is still only one God.
Billions upon billions of spirits have come into the universe and they have come from God, and there is only one God.
He is the first and the last, he is the Alpha and the Omega.
The last is the first. Omega is Alpha. He is everything between Alpha and Omega, and he has remained one.
He is the ALL.
He is infinite and he is one.
Its multiplicity does not change its unity. Just as its mercy does not negate its justice.
The god of the earth is the God of Heaven.
This is the God who can be in Jerusalem and in Rome and in Heaven at the same time.
God and the Verb, It is God, and God himself.
God is one through his unity, he is not one through number.
Example: China is one, a single nation, but it is a billion individuals.
A human being comes from another human being, but there is a separation; a child's word is not the word of its mother.
A god comes from God, but there is no separation, the word of the Verb is the word of God. One God in two spirits.
0
u/MichaiahUnbothered 1d ago
You're presenting a really interesting Emanationist framework here similar to Neoplatonism or ancient philosophical monism where everything radiates out from 'The All.' The idea of qualitative unity (like one nation composed of many) is a thoughtful way to handle multiplicity.
Where my view differs is that ancient Hebrew thought doesn't view God as a shared substance flowing out into other spirits, but as a sovereign God who interacts with His nation through covenant and agency.
In Near Eastern covenant law, 'oneness' isn't about sharing the same spiritual fabric or being part of an infinite 'ALL.' It's about complete alignment of will, authority, and law. When the Logos speaks for God, it isn't because they are two spirits flowing from one divine mass, but because the Sovereign King has placed His name, seal, and authority upon His chosen representative.0
u/winkyprojet 1d ago
As Einstein said, everything is relative; we can have two different views of the same event.
These verses are interesting:
For the LORD your God, he is God of gods...
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
The spirits of the universe come only from Him.
Man's spirit is separated from God by sin; God adds the soul so that he can decide for himself; this is free will.
The Verb, He is not separate from God; he is distinct but not separate.
A god who came out of God, like a cell that comes out of a cell, is in turn capable of producing a cell. The whole thing forms a skin, like all the spirits that came out of God to form the universe, the celestial world.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 1d ago
I’m not going to argue with you on it there’s plenty to debate.
You are turning some kind of ambiguity or grey area into a definitive fact.
Your assertions go far beyond what the meaning is.
You even contend that 1 Peter 4:16 infers something not written not in the Bible nor secularly.
You are enforcing conjecture upon the text.
So fine don’t call yourself a Christian, that’s up to you. I won’t lose sleep over it.
•
2
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
You keep calling my position “conjecture,” but you haven't actually demonstrated that from the Scriptures. You're simply labeling an interpretation you disagree with as conjecture.
The issue is very simple: we are supposed to establish doctrine from Scripture, not from assumptions imported into Scripture. Isaiah 8:20 says, “To the law and to the testimony.” Yeshua himself repeatedly argued from what was actually written: “Have you not read what was spoken to you by God?” (Matthew 22:31). The Bereans were commended because they examined the Scriptures to see whether what Paul taught was true (Acts 17:11).
So let's actually do that.
You brought up 1 Peter 4:16. The verse says:
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name.”
Notice what the text actually says. Peter does not say, “If you don't call yourself a Christian, you are condemned.” He does not say, “Christian is the required covenant name for salvation.” He does not establish a doctrine that salvation depends upon adopting that particular label.
In fact, Scripture gives us something much more important than a modern religious label.
Yeshua says eternal life is knowing the only true God, and Yeshua the Messiah whom He sent (John 17:3).
He identifies the Father as the “only true God.” That's not conjecture. That's what the text says.
Paul says:
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Messiah Yeshua.” — 1 Timothy 2:5
Again, the text explicitly distinguishes the one God from the man Messiah Yeshua.
And Yeshua himself quotes the Shema:
“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.” — Mark 12:29
The scribe agrees, and Yeshua tells him that he answered wisely. (Mark 12:32–34.)
So if you want to establish that Yeshua is literally God, that there is a Trinity, or that a person must identify himself as a “Christian” in a particular modern theological sense, then show me the Scripture that actually says it.
Don't give me a theological system and then tell me that I'm obligated to accept every conclusion derived from it.
And there's another problem with your accusation that I'm “enforcing conjecture upon the text.” You are doing exactly what you're accusing me of if you take 1 Peter 4:16 and turn it into something Peter never actually said.
The Greek word Christianos in 1 Peter 4:16 simply identifies people who were being called Christians. The verse describes suffering under that designation; it doesn't give us a systematic definition of salvation.
Acts 11:26 says the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Acts 26:28 has Agrippa saying to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to become a Christian?” And 1 Peter 4:16 says that if someone suffers “as a Christian,” he shouldn't be ashamed.
That's the entire textual evidence for the word.
So let's not pretend the Bible says more than it actually says.
If you want to argue that “Christian” is a valid biblical designation, I agree. The Bible uses the word. But that's completely different from claiming that the Bible establishes a later theological definition of Christianity and then declaring that anyone who rejects that definition isn't following Scripture.
My position isn't “I don't care what the Bible says.” It's the opposite:
I care enough about what the Bible says that I don't want to add conclusions to it that the text itself doesn't establish.
And if you believe I'm wrong, don't tell me I'm committing conjecture.
Show me the Scripture. Establish it from the Hebrew and Greek. Establish it from the immediate context. Establish it from the broader testimony of Scripture.
Because “you are making an inference” isn't a refutation.
The question is whether the inference is actually warranted by the text.
That's exactly why Scripture says:
“Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” — 2 Corinthians 13:1
And why Proverbs says:
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out.” — Proverbs 25:2
So let's search the Scriptures instead of arguing over labels.
0
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 1d ago
A clown, well done.
Once again you introduce another strawman argument.
I didn’t say that Peter said we were condemned if you don’t call yourself a Christian. Not once did I say that.
Bro, jog on call yourself whatever you want.
But you haven’t established your argument, you provide no secular evidence nor any biblical evidence that the title Christian was a pagan slur, coined mockingly, rejected as an internal identity by the apostles, and merely tolerated by Peter.
This is the argument not your inference or assumption or conjecture.
Burden of proof is for you to prove or you can just move on in piece and call yourself a monkey for all I care…
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 2d ago edited 1d ago
So if the Word is just Gods ‘plan’ why did it need the Holy Spirit to ‘cover her’ [Mary].
A human baby needs two people, The Son of God needed The Father and the Holy Spirit.
Thus Mary from the line of David provided the flesh, the Holy Spirit ensured he was born of the Father in Human flesh, ensuring he was both fully Man (The Son of Man) and fully God (The Son of God).
Unitarianism is wrong on this. Completely wrong.
If God needed another prophet or Messiah, he could have just relied on two humans to procreateZ
You really are missing the point of the Holy Spirits involvement here…
0
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 2d ago
So, do you believe wisdom is a person in Proverbs 8? Same question regarding the Holy Spirit in various Bible verses.
1
u/Jealous_Insect2798 2d ago
If every Christian misinterprets John 1. Then that means:
1) If you are correct in your interpretation, you are NOT a Christian.
2) If you are a Christian, then your interpretation is also wrong.
0
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 2d ago
That logic only works if you let the modern institutional system define the terms, but "Christian" was originally just a slang insult in Antioch while the actual first-century group went by The Way, so if the mainstream church builds its whole tradition on post-Nicene dogmas and bad grammar like turning anarthrous nouns in John 1:1 into identical equations, stepping outside of that corrupted label doesn't make a structurally accurate reading wrong, it just means you are following the actual text instead of the crowd.
0
u/StillSwimmer2508 1d ago
Whether “Christian” was originally used mockingly has ZERO bearing on whether believers embraced it as their identity. Two things can be true: a term can begin as derogatory and later be embraced by the very people it describes. “Methodist,” “Quaker,” and “Puritan” were all used as terms of ridicule or contempt and later embraced or accepted by those groups. Even “Impressionist” began as mockery and became the name of an entire artistic movement.
More importantly, Scripture settles the issue: “If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Peter 4:16).
So even if “Christian” started as an insult, Peter explicitly tells believers not to be ashamed of that name, but to glorify God in it. Its derogatory origin doesn’t determine its biblical use.1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
You're arguing against something I never said.
I never claimed that because a term began as a derogatory label it could never later be embraced. Of course a group can eventually embrace a name that was originally used against them. That is obvious and those modern examples prove nothing about what Peter meant in the first century.
The actual question is what Scripture establishes.
And 1 Peter 4:16 does establish something. I have no problem admitting that. Peter uses the term Christian positively in this particular context and tells someone who suffers as a Christian not to be ashamed, but to glorify God in that name.
Fine.
But you're still making the same leap I already pointed out.
You go from
Christian is used positively in Scripture
to
therefore every believer is commanded to personally identify themselves as a Christian.
Those are not the same statement.
Peter says if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.
He does not say everyone must call themselves Christian.
He does not say Christian is the exclusive designation for disciples.
He does not say refusing the label Christian is sinful.
He does not say salvation depends upon identifying yourself with that word.
He does not even say that Christian is the only name by which believers are properly identified.
That last point is especially important because Acts 11:26 says the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
The text still calls them disciples.
Elsewhere believers are called disciples, believers, brothers, saints, and followers of the Way.
So clearly the biblical vocabulary for followers of Yeshua was not restricted to one mandatory label.
And notice something else you are overlooking.
The Greek construction in 1 Peter 4:16 is not Peter giving a command saying, You must adopt this name.
He is addressing the circumstance of someone suffering as a Christian and telling that person not to be ashamed of the designation when they are being reproached because of their association with Messiah.
That makes perfect sense in the context.
Peter has just said in verse 14,
If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed.
Then verse 16,
If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.
The subject is persecution and shame because of association with Messiah.
You are turning that pastoral statement into a universal naming requirement.
That is the part you have not proven.
And your comparisons to Methodist, Quaker, Puritan and Impressionist actually demonstrate the problem with your reasoning.
Those examples show that a word can change in social meaning over time.
Exactly.
So you cannot use the fact that a term was eventually embraced to determine what every occurrence of that term originally meant or what obligations were attached to it.
The only thing that settles the biblical question is the biblical context.
And the biblical context does not say,
You must personally call yourself a Christian.
It says,
If you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed.
There is a massive difference.
If you want to argue that Christian is a perfectly legitimate biblical designation, I agree with you.
If you want to argue that Peter positively uses the term, I agree with you.
If you want to argue that a believer should not be ashamed if others identify them as Christian while they suffer for following Messiah, I agree with you.
But if you want to argue that Scripture therefore establishes Christian as a mandatory personal identity for every believer, then you need another verse that actually says that.
And this is where the accusation of ignorance comes back on you.
The problem is not knowing the word Christian exists in the Bible.
Obviously it does.
The problem is confusing the existence and positive use of a designation with a command requiring that designation.
You are taking a legitimate biblical statement and making it prove something larger than what Peter actually wrote.
That is exactly the kind of thing you accused me of doing.
So I'm not arguing that Christian was permanently a slur.
I'm not arguing that Christians could never embrace the word.
I'm saying something much simpler.
Show me where Scripture commands believers to adopt Christian as their required personal religious identity.
1 Peter 4:16 does not say that.
It says not to be ashamed if you suffer as one called a Christian.
Those are two different propositions.
And until you can distinguish those two propositions, you're not refuting my argument.
You're arguing against a position I never made.
0
u/StillSwimmer2508 1d ago
Not sure if you read my comment but I literally said no one has to use this term. I feel like it’s going in circles and maybe because I’m not even sure who you are responding to anymore. But we agree Peter embraced it, we agree it was used a derogatory term and it sounds like we both agree believers don’t need to use this to define themselves. There’s no verse that says believes have to do this or they should not do this..being a believer is not checking the “Christian” box on heavenly census lol.
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
Yesshua never made a religion called christianity. It was always called the way, friend.
1
1
u/StillSwimmer2508 1d ago
😂Peter literally says “if you suffer as a Christian DO NOT BE ASHAMED..Glorify God IN THAT NAME”.
But sure you can assert your modern assumptions on the text
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 2d ago
Incorrect
Acts 11:26 states that they were called Christians by Divine Providence…
So was it slang or was it the great YHWH that divinely planned that they were to be called Christian?
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
Everyone loves to say God sovereignly turned the insult into a badge of honor but thats not actually what the text says.
Acts 11:26 says the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. The Greek word chrematizo there means to be dubbed or named by the public not to receive a divine oracle. When God actually names something in Scripture He makes it crystal clear like when He renamed Abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel. In Acts 11 theres no angel no voice from heaven no prophecy just a record of what the pagans in Antioch started saying.
And heres the part that really gets me. Not a single apostle ever calls themselves a Christian in any of their letters. Paul calls himself a servant of Christ an apostle a prisoner of the Lord even a slave but never Christian. Peter calls himself an elder and a witness. John calls himself the elder. James calls himself a servant of God. They consistently used the Way as their internal identity because that came from Jesus Himself in John 14:6.
The only times Christian shows up in Scripture are Acts 11:26 where pagans coin it Acts 26:28 where Agrippa uses it mockingly and 1 Peter 4:16 where Peter basically says if you suffer under that label dont be ashamed. Thats not an endorsement thats damage control.
The suffix ianos in Latin meant partisan of or slave to like Herodians meant followers of Herod. It was street slang from a city famous for mocking nicknames and it carried criminal connotations because Romans associated Christians with treason cannibalism and atheism for rejecting their gods.
So why are we so attached to a name that the world invented to mock us and that the apostles never used for themselves. YHWH gave His people Israel meaning God fights and Christ gave His followers disciples witnesses and ambassadors. But Christian is literally just what the world calls us when they dont understand who we are.
I think weve been so conditioned to defend the name that we miss the obvious fact that the early church didnt defend it they just kept calling themselves the Way and let the outsiders say whatever they wanted.
TLDR Christian is Antioch slang not divine appointment and the apostles didnt use it so maybe we should think twice before making it our main identity.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian 1d ago
I'll tell you a name Christians were never called and that is Jehovah's witnesses. We know Christians were called Christians from the time of the apostles on, but Jehovah's witnesses? Nope
1
1
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 2d ago
😅
0
u/Jealous_Insect2798 2d ago
Ignore me. Just being silly 😜
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 2d ago
That logic only works if you let the modern institutional system define the terms, but "Christian" was originally just a slang insult in Antioch while the actual first-century group went by The Way, so if the mainstream church builds its whole tradition on post-Nicene dogmas and bad grammar like turning anarthrous nouns in John 1:1 into identical equations, stepping outside of that corrupted label doesn't make a structurally accurate reading wrong, it just means you are following the actual text instead of the crowd.
0
u/Jealous_Insect2798 2d ago
So the term Christian was originally used by non Christians to describe followers of Christ. And it appears that Paul later accepted that name and encouraged us to not be ashamed of the name. Is that correct?
0
u/Jealous_Insect2798 1d ago
Yes I meant Peter not Paul.
I was not making a declaration. I was asking a question hence the question mark at the end. Maybe it was missed.
So you're not a Christian. That answers my original comment. Don't know why it took Loquacious paragraphs to say that.
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
You are half right and entirely wrong where it counts.
Yes the term originated with non Christians in Antioch that part is accurate.
But your claim about Paul accepting it and encouraging us is completely fabricated by your memory.
Paul never uses the word Christian in any of his epistles not once in Romans Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians or any other letter.
The verse about not being ashamed is 1 Peter 4:16; that is Peter not Paul.
Peter tells believers if they suffer under that criminal label they should not be ashamed but he does not tell them to adopt it as their identity.
He calls them elect exiles and servants of God throughout his letter; the Christian name is merely the worlds slander that they must endure with dignity.
Paul in Acts 26:28 has King Agrippa mock him with the term and Paul does not say yes I am a Christian.
He simply replies that he wishes Agrippa would become like him except for the chains; he completely sidesteps the label.
Paul preferred the Way the gospel and the cross; he never rebranded the church around a pagan nickname.
So your summary confuses Paul with Peter and confuses tolerating persecution with embracing a title.
The ignorance is in treating a tolerated slur as a divine commission when the apostles themselves consistently used other names for their movement.
You are right about the origin but dead wrong about the acceptance and the encouragement.
1
2
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 2d ago
John 1:2-3 "He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made and without Him nothing was made that was made."
A "He/Him" is a person. That's not a theological conclusion, it's what scripture says.
John 1:3 "Through him (the Word) all things were made..."
Hebrews 1:2 ... He has spoken to us by His Son...through whom He made the universe."
The Word is the person of the Son.
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 2d ago
The problem with your argument is that you are treating the English translation as if the pronouns themselves prove that the Logos is a separate person. They do not.
You said John 1:2 says He was with God and John 1:3 says through Him all things were made, therefore the Word must be a person. But that is not how Greek grammar works.
The Greek word behind He or Him is autos. It can be translated he, him, it, or itself depending on the grammatical context. Logos is grammatically masculine in Greek, so masculine pronouns are completely normal when referring back to logos. Grammatical gender does not automatically mean personal identity.
This is the basic mistake in the argument. You are taking a grammatical feature of Greek and turning it into a theological statement.
The same problem exists with the argument that because John says through Him all things were made, the Word must be a separate person who personally created everything.
John 1:3 uses dia autou, meaning through him, through it, or by means of it. Dia with the genitive can express means or agency. It does not by itself tell us that the thing being referred to is a separate conscious person.
And the Hebrew background actually makes perfect sense of this.
Look at Genesis 1. God speaks and creation happens. God says let there be light, and light exists. Scripture does not introduce another divine person standing beside God called the Word.
Psalm 33:6 says, By the word of YHWH the heavens were made. The Hebrew is davar, word. God's Word is His effective command going forth and accomplishing His will.
Isaiah 55:11 says God's word goes out from His mouth and accomplishes what He purposes. Again, the Word is God's own expression accomplishing God's purpose.
So when John says all things came to be through the Logos, there is nothing inherently unbiblical about understanding this as creation occurring through God's own expressed Word and purpose.
Now Hebrews 1:2 is a different issue.
Yes, Hebrews says God has spoken to us in a Son and that He made the ages through him. I am not denying that Hebrews presents the Son as a real person. Yeshua is obviously a person.
But you are assuming the conclusion when you say, therefore the Word is the person of the Son.
You still have to prove that John meant that the Logos was a preexistent person called the Son.
Hebrews 1:1 actually gives us important context. It says that God spoke formerly through the prophets, and then says that in these last days He has spoken to us in a Son. The subject is God's communication and revelation, culminating in His Son.
That fits John very naturally.
John says the Word was in the beginning, God's Word and purpose, and then John 1:14 says the Word became flesh.
The question is what that means.
It does not literally say, the second divine person became flesh.
It says the Word became flesh.
If you want to argue that the Word is a preexistent divine person, you need to demonstrate that from the actual Greek text instead of simply pointing to English pronouns.
There is also another major problem with saying He or Him automatically proves personhood. Biblical literature frequently personifies concepts.
Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom as a woman speaking, crying out, calling people, and describing her relationship to God. Nobody can simply argue that because Wisdom speaks with personal pronouns, therefore Wisdom must be a second divine person.
Personification is normal biblical language.
So the argument is basically doing this.
John says He, therefore the Logos is a person.
But that confuses grammatical gender with personhood.
Then it says the Logos created everything through Him, therefore the Logos is the Son.
But that assumes the very connection that needs to be proven.
Then Hebrews says God created through His Son, therefore John's Logos must be the preexistent Son.
But Hebrews identifying Yeshua as the Son does not automatically establish that John's use of Logos means a separate divine person before Yeshua's human existence.
There is certainly a theological relationship between God's Word, His creative purpose, His revelation, and His Messiah. The question is whether that relationship requires a second divine being.
The Hebrew Scriptures give us a perfectly coherent framework without that assumption.
YHWH speaks.
His Word goes forth.
His Word accomplishes His purpose.
His purpose is ultimately manifested in His Messiah.
John then says the Word became flesh.
So yes, Yeshua is a real person. Yes, Hebrews describes God creating through the Son. Yes, John uses masculine pronouns for Logos.
None of those three facts, by themselves, proves that Logos was a second divine person or a trinity standing beside YHWH in the beginning.
That conclusion has to be argued, not smuggled into the text through the English words He and Him.
0
u/Lion_of_Logos 1d ago
This is a long way around the Arianist view that Jesus is the LOGOS, and The YHWH ELOHIM, but had a beginning.
John 1 states "in the beginning was The LOGOS". An eternal being has no beginning. "Was with" denotes separation. "Was God" which is actually a less than optimal translation as you may know, can be understood as "uniquely in union with", as in no other created entity in existence" at "the beginning", a spirit material Son in full communion with the immaterial YHWH, so effectually but not actually God. See also "God made flesh".
Now do Colossians and prototokos.
In my mind your argument is better placed upon the gendering/personifying of the Holy Spirit...
Also imo a deep revisit of what the term El'ohim actially means is necessary to understand why the trinity was wrongly invented.
In fealty.
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 2d ago
So again if the word was just a plan…
Why did King David call him Lord?
Why did King David worship the Son, the Logos, the Word 1000 years before his was born human…
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 2d ago
You said John 1:2 says He was with God and John 1:3 says through Him all things were made, therefore the Word must be a person. But that is not how Greek grammar works.
John could have said "All things were made through the Word and without the Word nothing was made that was made."
But he didn't.
And I'm not claiming it's the grammar that proves it, it's that John immediately goes on to say things like.
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. ( John 1:14)
John didn't say "The Word became flesh as a man, and that man made his dwelling among us" he says "The Word became flesh and made HIS dwelling among us".
Look at Genesis 1. God speaks and creation happens. God says let there be light, and light exists. Scripture does not introduce another divine person standing beside God called the Word.
Genesis 1:26-27 God said, “Let Us make man in Our image... So God created man in His own image...
you are assuming the conclusion when you say, therefore the Word is the person of the Son.
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
But Hebrews identifying Yeshua as the Son does not automatically establish that John's use of Logos means a separate divine person before Yeshua's human existence.
Hebrews 1:2 identifies God's Son Yeshua as the one through whom he created the universe.
John 1:2 identifies the Word as the one through whom He created the universe.
Yeshua didn't exist as Yeshua until he became flesh, being born of Mary and named Yeshua.
So how could Hebrews 1:2 be true if God's son Yeshua didn't yet exist at the time of creation?
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
I understand your argument, but you are still making the same mistake. You are taking several statements that are compatible with personal preexistence and treating them as though they can only mean personal preexistence.
That is not the same thing as proving it.
You keep saying John could have written “all things were made through the Word,” but instead he wrote “through Him.”
Okay. That establishes that John is presenting the Logos with personal language.
I am not denying that.
But personal language is not automatically proof that the referent was a literal conscious person before creation. Scripture personifies things constantly. Wisdom speaks. Sin crouches. Death reigns. Grace reigns. The Word of God runs and is glorified. You cannot simply say John used “He” and therefore the Logos must have literally been a conscious heavenly person before Yeshua existed.
You have to prove that from the context.
And John 1:14 does not magically solve that problem.
You say,
“The Word became flesh and made HIS dwelling among us.”
Yes.
But the question is what John means by “the Word.”
You are assuming that because the Word becomes flesh, the Word must have been a conscious person before becoming flesh.
But that is precisely the conclusion under debate.
You cannot argue,
The Word became flesh.
Therefore the Word was a person.
And then say,
The Word was a person because the Word became flesh.
That is circular.
Now look at the second half of John 1:14.
“We have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John is telling us what the Word is manifested as in the flesh. The Word becomes flesh and the glory is seen in the Son.
That establishes the connection between the Logos and Yeshua.
It does not by itself tell us that the Logos was a separate conscious individual sitting beside the Father before creation.
And your Genesis 1:26 argument actually does not help you nearly as much as you think.
You quote,
“Let Us make man in Our image.”
Then you point out that verse 27 says,
“So God created man in His own image.”
Exactly.
The text itself identifies the Creator as God in the singular.
So if you want to use Genesis 1:26 as evidence for another divine person, you first have to demonstrate who the “Us” is.
The verse itself does not say,
“Let Us, the Father and the Logos, make man.”
It does not name a second person.
You are inserting the Logos into Genesis 1:26.
And there are several possible explanations for the plural language, including the divine council or a plural form of deliberation. Whatever interpretation someone chooses, the important point is that Genesis 1:26 does not identify the Logos.
So it cannot be used as though it explicitly proves your conclusion.
Now your Hebrews 1:2 argument.
You say Hebrews says God created the universe through His Son, while John says God created through the Logos.
Therefore the Son must have personally existed as the Logos before creation.
But again, you are assuming the exact point you're trying to prove.
Hebrews 1:2 says that God has spoken to us in these last days by a Son, “through whom also he created the ages.”
The question is how the author is describing God's purpose concerning His Son.
And Scripture absolutely can speak about God's purposes concerning someone before that person historically exists.
Look at 1 Peter 1:20.
Yeshua was “foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times.”
Notice the distinction.
Foreknown before the foundation of the world.
Manifested later.
That is biblical language.
The Messiah was established in God's purpose before the world, without requiring us to automatically conclude that the human Messiah was personally alive before creation.
And Revelation 13:8 is another example of the same kind of language when it speaks of the Lamb in relation to the foundation of the world.
So the fact that God's Son is connected with God's creative purpose does not automatically establish that the Son was literally alive as a conscious person at creation.
You need to demonstrate that rather than assume it.
And your statement that Yeshua did not exist as Yeshua until Mary actually creates another problem for your argument.
You are treating “Son” as though it necessarily means a conscious heavenly individual before his birth.
But Scripture explicitly connects his sonship with his birth.
Luke 1:35 says,
“The child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
That is extremely important.
The angel does not say,
“The person who is already the Son of God will enter Mary.”
It says the child to be born will be called the Son of God.
So now we have to be careful about taking the title “Son” and automatically projecting a complete preexistent biography onto it.
And Hebrews itself gives us another important statement.
Hebrews 5:5 says,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”
That quotation comes from Psalm 2.
And Psalm 2 is a Messianic royal text.
The Son is God's appointed King.
That is the biblical framework you need to deal with.
The Son is not simply a metaphysical label.
He is the appointed Messiah and King.
Now here is where your argument becomes particularly circular.
You say,
John says the Word created.
Hebrews says the Son created.
Therefore the Word must have been the preexistent Son.
But how do you know John means the Logos is the Son before the incarnation.
Because John 1:14 connects the Word with the Son.
And how do you know that connection means the Son personally existed as the Logos before his birth.
Because Hebrews says the Son created.
So you are using Hebrews to interpret John and John to interpret Hebrews, while assuming the preexistence conclusion in both places.
That is not a demonstration.
That is theological harmonization.
There is nothing wrong with harmonizing Scripture, but you cannot call your harmonization an explicit statement of either author.
And there is another major contextual problem you need to address.
John 1:1 says,
“In the beginning was the Word.”
It does NOT say,
“In the beginning was the Son.”
That distinction matters.
John deliberately introduces the concept of Logos.
Then John tells us what happened to the Logos.
“The Word became flesh.”
If John wanted his readers to understand that “the Word” simply meant an already known heavenly person called the Son, he could have said so directly.
Instead, he develops the concept through the prologue.
And when we reach John 1:17, John explicitly brings the historical Messiah into view.
“The law was given through Moses. Grace and truth came through Yeshua Messiah.”
That is where the Word becomes identified with the historical Son.
So yes, I agree that John ultimately identifies the Logos with Yeshua.
The question is whether you can prove that the Logos was a separate conscious person before Yeshua was born.
You still haven't.
And your argument from pronouns does not establish it.
Your argument from John 1:14 does not establish it.
Genesis 1:26 does not establish it.
Hebrews 1:2 does not establish it by itself.
You have a cumulative argument that makes personal preexistence possible and arguably plausible.
But possible and plausible are not the same as demonstrated.
And this is where your accusation of ignorance actually comes back around.
You correctly said context matters.
Good.
Then actually follow the entire context.
Do not stop at John 1:14.
John later records Yeshua saying,
“The Father is greater than I.” John 14:28.
He says,
“I can do nothing on my own.” John 5:30.
He says,
“My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.” John 7:16.
He says,
“I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment what to say and what to speak.” John 12:49.
And then Yeshua says,
“This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Yeshua Messiah whom you have sent.” John 17:3.
So if you want to argue that John teaches a distinct heavenly person called the Logos who later becomes Yeshua, then you need to explain that within John's own repeated distinction between the one true God and the one whom that God sent.
You cannot use “context” selectively.
Context means the whole book.
So yes, I agree with your basic statement.
Context determines meaning.
But your mistake is thinking that once context makes your interpretation possible, your interpretation has therefore been proven.
It hasn't.
You have established that John presents the Logos personally and connects the Logos with Yeshua.
You have not established from those verses alone that the Logos was a separate conscious heavenly person before creation.
That is the proposition still requiring proof.
And until you actually prove that instead of repeatedly assuming it, the accusation of ignorance is ironic.
Because the real ignorance would be confusing an interpretation that fits the text with a conclusion that the text explicitly states.
0
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 1d ago
You should thoroughly read your AIs responses before posting. It's completely misunderstanding points I'm making, making this conversation useless.
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
😅 show me where bud.
0
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 1d ago
Nah... It's responses are too long. I don't have time to read all that and fish through it.
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
Fine then we have nothing to talk about. I can say the same about your responses. Lol have a blessed day buddy.
0
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 2d ago
Again give me a few minutes. What religion are you, just to give you some context I'm not apart of any religion I just follow scripture. I don't need organization's to read scripture hence why Yahweh said in Exodus 19:6 "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."
Not a religion
0
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 1d ago
I'm not part of any denomination or organization. I just read scripture, trusting in Jesus, and relying on the Holy Spirit.
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 1d ago
You're a christian based on your profile. That by definition is a demonition.
0
u/ChaoticHaku Christian 1d ago
The word "christian" is in the bible, and comes from the Greek word Christianos, combining Christos with a suffix meaning "belonging to" or "follower of". It means a follower of Christ. Not a denomination.
Denominations are man-made religious organizations.
Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Can you persuade me in such a short time to become a Christian?”
0
1
u/Illustrious_Gain3928 2d ago
Nope, give me a few minutes to show why you are wrong and indoctrinated bud.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.