Trinity.

[TheEditor]

All of this is complete and utter baseless speculation. We have a Logos already in the Scriptures John considered inspired. Why isn't that enough, why do we have to constantly reinterpret God's Word according to constant speculations to adjust it to mean what we want. This is such a common exegetical method with some I think they hardly blink twice. They assume you can't just "understand" Scripture to mean exactly what it says, but you have to find all this outside speculative material that influences and changes the basic and straightforward meaning of the text. If we start there, with the presupposition that God's Word can't just be understood contextually within itself, well, we have left already what it says about itself and thrown inspiration to the wind. There's really no way to argue against someone who constantly brings in whatever outside context they need to reinterpret what the Scripture says. It's a fundamental difference in foundational presuppositions.

Hi Dizerner,

I think this is an unfair statement and I believe a knee-jerk one on your part. Of course we have to do just this with the Scriptures, for the following reason:

English is a very bad way for you to put an idea from your brain into mine. Worse still for you to translate from German to English in order to do the same. Worse still, to translate from Latin to German to English. Worse still to translate from ancient Greek to English. And finally, worse still when we realize that even in out own native language, words such as Cell, Rap, Lame, Application, Keyboard, Mouse, Web, Goth and many others have very different common usages now then they did even 20 years ago. Now, consider words that have changed over the last 100 years:

"Awful" used to be a reference to "awesome". Old books refer to the "awful majesty of God". Do we think of that word the same way today?

"Wench" Used to mean children, or a child. How about now?

"Clue" used to mean a ball of yarn.

"Silly" used to be a positive word, referring to "blessed" things, then it morphed into a term for "weak" and now it means "foolish".

"Naughty", it comes from the root to "have naught" or to be "needy". From there it morphed to mean immoral; now it means bad behavior.

"Nice" was once used for "foolish".

Now extrapolate this principle to transcend millennia and several languages and tell me we don't need to have the "basic and straightforward meaning of the text" to be explained on occasion. By the way, William Barclay has quite an interesting commentary on John and ties in the Jewish ideas regarding the power of "words". Most scholars praise Barclays insights and all of the heavy lifting he did to bring greater meaning to the texts, but they still don't like his theology, so they say 'use his resources, but beware his theology'. I suppose whether or not something is baseless speculation is directly proportional to whether or not ones own theological bull is being gored.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

Editor, and others, no matter what word you put into the blank, we know who John is speaking of, because Scripture has already noted God said there was Only God in the beginning. John is referring here to Genesis 1 after all:

'In the beginning was the ______, and the ______ was with God, and the ______ was God. 2 ______ was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through ______, and apart from ______ nothing came into being that has come into being'
Only God was there in the beginning, anyone with God was God also. John does say that this ______ someone was with God in the beginning with God. I have a good idea 'who' John is referring to, don't you?

'In ______ was life, and the life was the Light of men... There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him... And the ______ became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth 15 John testified about ______ and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me” (John 1)

The word word and logos are pretty straight forward. And most of us do know there are two meanings to all these other modern words: Cell, Rap, Lame, Application, Keyboard, Mouse, Web, Goth, Gay. etc. We also should have good theological Dictionaries, I have a few. They have good historical references for these words, old languages are not lost in outer space, God anticipated our language would change, but the contexts are very helpful, and God used everyday plain language. I recognized the word logos from reading philosophy and Homer before I was a Christian.


I asked "Who is the Shepherd of your soul, and of the souls of all the believers in the world?"
And so Paidion posts a giant picture of George MacDonald?

[dizerner]

I think this is an unfair statement and I believe a knee-jerk one on your part. Of course we have to do just this with the Scriptures

Well, obviously I think you are misunderstanding my point since I don't think we have to read outside speculations about ideas of what the authors might have meant if there is a contextual meaning that fits. I'm not saying we don't study the meaning of words, man, that should be obvious. I'm not saying we don't look at how the words might be used by others. But if we have a theological term like Logos, and the Old Testament paints a clear picture of what a Logos is, we don't need to look at cults or Greek philosophers to define what Logos means biblically. Because theological or doctrinal, or dare we say, even spiritual words necessarily are not the same as normal everyday words. That is to say, Logos is a word you can take in so many ways, that, indeed, even in the ancients it could mean different things and any cult could make their own definition. If the Old Testament provides us with a religious definition of Logos, then I don't think it's even close to unfair to say we don't need to look elsewhere.

Worse still, to translate from Latin to German to English. Worse still to translate from ancient Greek to English.

Of course I disagree that translating through 3 languages is somehow better than translating straight from one to the other. I don't understand how you could think translating twice through two different languages is less worse. Perhaps you typed this wrongly by mistake.

And finally, worse still when we realize that even in out own native language, words [meanings can change].

I really think you are misunderstanding my point. Of course words' definitions can change, I was never implying that words' definitions can never change, I'm not sure how that could be inferred from a careful reading of my post. Yes, we can look at how a word is used in a secular way, yes, we can check how a word can be used in many different contexts, yes, we can check how cognate languages use a word. None of that was what I was addressing. I'm saying that if the Scripture has a meaning that fits its own context, we do not need to look to change or redefine the meaning with outside cults, philosophies, or other religions. And I do feel that's a fundamental presupposition of inspiration, and simply handling the text with respect. Take the word God for example: should we redefine how the Bible uses it according to pagan religions of the time? Many secular scholars do just that.

Now extrapolate this principle to transcend millennia and several languages and tell me we don't need to have the "basic and straightforward meaning of the text" to be explained on occasion.

Eh, now I feel you are being unfair to my post and writing a "knee-jerk" reaction. I never even implied we don't need it to be "explained." What I implied is that we don't need it to be "explained away," if it really does mean something in an understandable way that fits the context, and yes, obviously in the light of the grammar and vocabulary of the day, but not in the light of theoretical religious relationships that are completely speculative, such as combating some cult or other. Would I be safe in assuming you never even bothered to read any of the original post I was responding to, Lectures on The Principles of Unitarianism?

I suppose whether or not something is baseless speculation is directly proportional to whether or not ones own theological bull is being gored.

Yes, of course, the best assumption is that a person is insincere, has no earnest desire for the truth, or to deal with ideas fairly. That's sarcasm by the way. Your implication that I react in a "knee-jerk" fashion when my theological "bull" is being "gored" is highly insulting both to my character and intelligence. But I suppose I should turn the other cheek .

[Jose]

Uhh -- yes... perhaps I could have written an intro, but as the title suggests it is a 19th Century lecture presenting a lengthy argument for a unitarian view of God. This is what the topic is about. It presents in article form many of the points made in this thread in a coherent manner -- it should be of interest to anyone following this thread. Resources of this nature are very hard to come by.

You certainly don't need to read it, but it is interesting and well reasoned.

It does present a perspective not really brought out in this forum to my knowledge about the context and potential purpose behind John's gospel which certainly presents a very different perspective in John's introduction than what we see in mainstream circles. He suggests that John was writing in the milieu of Gnosticism and explains how much of the language and treatment makes better sense when viewed as a reaction and response to those gnostic views at the time and not as a primer on the nature of God written to address our own notions of God.

Hi Darin,

Definitely an interesting read. Are you familiar with Mary Dana? She wrote some very heartfelt and well articulated letters to her father when she converted from the trinitarianism that she was raised with to unitarianism. It is available to read online or it can be downloaded here: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/catego ... es/history. There are also many resources available free to read and download at https://play.google.com/store/books?hl=en.

Jose

[TheEditor]

Okay Dizerner,

Perhaps I have let my own "knee-jerkness" get the better of me. But I am still left to wonder what contextual consideration of "the Logos" do you feel is supplied in the Gospel? What Old Testament understanding of "Logos" is there that helps you ascertain what the author had in mind when he penned his Gospel account? Considering that John appears to have dealt with Gnostics in his other writings, it doesn't seem a stretch here, but I would be curious as to your thoughts to my questions above.

Regards, Brenden.

PS. My comment about "theological ox" does not have to be taken cynically. It falls under the category of "human nature"; most people regardless of how much they are truth-seekers tend to want to preserve cherished notions. Welcome to the human race.

[Homer]

Good explanation from gotquestions.org:

Once we understand that John’s purpose was to introduce the readers of his gospel to Jesus Christ, establishing Who Jesus is (God in the flesh) and what He did, all with the sole aim of leading them to embrace the saving work of Christ in faith, we will be better able to understand why John introduces Jesus as “The Word” in John 1:1.

By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.

So, essentially, what John is doing by introducing Jesus as the Logos is drawing upon a familiar word and concept that both Jews and Gentiles of his day would have been familiar with and using that as the starting point from which He introduces them to Jesus Christ. But John goes beyond the familiar concept of Logos that his Jewish and Gentile readers would have had and presents Jesus Christ not as a mere mediating principle like the Greeks perceived, but as a personal being, fully divine, yet fully human. Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: "Jesus said unto Him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9). By using the term Logos or “Word” in John 1:1, John is amplifying and applying a concept with which his audience was familiar and using that to introduce his readers to the true Logos of God in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, fully God and yet fully man, who came to reveal God to man and redeem all who believe in Him from their sin.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Word- ... z3Qq3O06kA

[dizerner]

Okay Dizerner,

Perhaps I have let my own "knee-jerkness" get the better of me.

PS. My comment about "theological ox" does not have to be taken cynically. It falls under the category of "human nature"; most people regardless of how much they are truth-seekers tend to want to preserve cherished notions. Welcome to the human race.

No problem. I would never say I could escape the foibles of human nature altogether.

But I am still left to wonder what contextual consideration of "the Logos" do you feel is supplied in the Gospel? What Old Testament understanding of "Logos" is there that helps you ascertain what the author had in mind when he penned his Gospel account?

Two main ideas. One is the spoken Word of God that first created Light and all of creation. John associates Christ with that Light that gives light to every man. The second I think it's God's Torah, his Word, embodying the perfection of his requirements. The wisdom literature also gives us a picture of a kind of Logos that represents God's Wisdom. This Wisdom is clearly heavily personified, as some one calling out to us, as something we should seek above all else, and someone who was present at creation, and indeed participated in it. These are very stark ideas that are clearly what is in the New Testament author's minds. However much of outside secular philosophy or religion one feels influenced these ideas, this is the way God set them down in Scripture.

Considering that John appears to have dealt with Gnostics in his other writings, it doesn't seem a stretch here, but I would be curious as to your thoughts to my questions above.

Frankly, this idea has been bandied about so many times I don't feel we critically analyze it anymore. Obviously John is combating some wrong ideas that "Gnostics" or whatever other erroneous teachers were teaching, however I don't think we are justified in speculating beyond what the text says and gives us. So when John says not to receive certain false teachers who deny Christ came in the flesh, and such things, they are clearly marked out in the purpose of the letter. Are we then justified in assuming John 1 was written to combat Gnosticism? I really don't think we are...

[Paidion]

So when John says not to receive certain false teachers who deny Christ came in the flesh, and such things, they are clearly marked out in the purpose of the letter. Are we then justified in assuming John 1 was written to combat Gnosticism? I really don't think we are...

I think we are. I came to that consideration after I had studied the gnostic teachings in the second century. I think the earlier stages of gnosticism were evident in John's day. One of their main tenets was that Jesus was God, and that as God, He couldn't have been born as a human being. Rather He APPEARED to be a human being, but He was more like an apparition or had a human appearance in the way that angels sometimes do. According to gnosticism, He first appeared as a baby. As a baby, appearing to be only 6 months old, He sometimes gave great orations which led his listeners to marvel. He didn't need food or water; rather He ate and drank only to give the illusion of being human. According to gnosticism, when Jesus, as a boy was being taught to read and write Greek, he had nothing to learn. He already knew it all, and He used class time to show his superiority to his teachers.

I think John probably wrote 1 John in his older age, probably around 90 A.D. It is written in very simple Greek, unlike the gospel of John in this respect. Probably John the elder wrote 2 John around that time as well. He also mentions the deceivers who did not confess that Jesus had come in the flesh.

[dizerner]

I actually meant the Gospel of John chapter 1, sorry for the lack of clarity.

[darinhouston]

Frankly, this idea has been bandied about so many times I don't feel we critically analyze it anymore. Obviously John is combating some wrong ideas that "Gnostics" or whatever other erroneous teachers were teaching, however I don't think we are justified in speculating beyond what the text says and gives us. So when John says not to receive certain false teachers who deny Christ came in the flesh, and such things, they are clearly marked out in the purpose of the letter. Are we then justified in assuming John 1 was written to combat Gnosticism? I really don't think we are...

Well, you haven't actually critically analyzed it -- you have merely dismissed it. Yes, it's been bandied about so much that perhaps there is some truth to it. If I was novating this idea, then it's fair for you to merely dismiss it until I offer evidence. However, it's among the historically prevalent theories about this passage (as attested by your notion that it's so often "bandied about"); therefore, to dismiss it I think should require some evidence that it's not true.

We are very far removed from the writing, and so any theory is somewhat "speculative." You say you are merely relying on what the text says, but even the traditional view has much speculation in it as to what was in view with the notion of the Word, etc. We are all seeking the same thing -- trying to place the text itself within its proper contextual framework at the time it was written and as it would have been understood by John's contemporaries. If it were plain teaching (I can think of no more confusing texts in all of the bible divorced from the aid of its traditional interpretation), then we wouldn't have spent perhaps the longest thread on this forum discussing such a wide range of interpretations.