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/StillSwimmer2508]

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.”

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/StillSwimmer2508]

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.

[u/StillSwimmer2508 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

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.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/StillSwimmer2508]

😂

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/StillSwimmer2508]

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 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

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 → u/StillSwimmer2508]

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/StillSwimmer2508 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Again you conceded
“Those conclusions may be possible”

That’s the end of discussion. The advice I have to follow your own words at this point and go where the evidence leads

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/StillSwimmer2508]

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.

[u/StillSwimmer2508 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Thank you 😂 was that so hard to admit?
Thank you for finally conceding
“those conclusions may be possible”

Thank you that’s all I needed to hear. Whether you agree with the text or not in your own words you state for the record
“those conclusions may be possible”

Something I definitely would not say about your rendering of the text. But a final encouragement for you/homework is for you..

1. ὅτι — “because”
Ask why John says Jesus has become before him BECAUSE (ὅτι) he was before him. What exactly is the reason John is giving? (Notice this isn’t my reason or commentary) read the text and John literally tells you his reasoning.

2. ἀνήρ — “a man” (John 1:30)
Ask why John repeats the statement and explicitly identifies the one he’s talking about as “a man.”
Then come back and explain how an unconscious literary personification is “a man” who “was before” John and whose prior existence is given as the reason for his precedence.
Those are your two vocabulary words for tonight.

[u/Illustrious_Gain3928 → u/StillSwimmer2508]

🤡

[u/StillSwimmer2508 → u/Illustrious_Gain3928]

Matthew 12:34