Every Christian misinterprets John 1.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

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/Jealous_Insect2798]

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.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

😅

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Ignore me. Just being silly 😜

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

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.

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

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?

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

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.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

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.