John 1

[Twinky]

Anybody got a copy of TWI's analysis of John 1:1-14? Isn't there one of the collaterals that covers this? If so, could you post/attach to a reply, PM me, or email a copy - whatever.

It may be also that some of you have some other research (pre-dating TWI? Plagiarized by VPW?) and it would be useful to see that, too.

Thanks.

[waysider]

Anybody got a copy of TWI's analysis of John 1:1-14? Isn't there one of the collaterals that covers this? If so, could you post/attach to a reply, PM me, or email a copy - whatever.

It may be also that some of you have some other research (pre-dating TWI? Plagiarized by VPW?) and it would be useful to see that, too.

Thanks.

It's in The Word's Way (Studies in Abundant Living, Volume III)-----The Brown Book.

Chapter II

Who Is The Word ?

John 1:1-18

I don't have a scanner. :(

Edited September 19, 2010 by waysider

[Twinky]

Thanks, Waysider.

Now, anybody got a scanner?

[teachmevp]

Who is The Word

I wonder if VeePee ripped that off out of that Leonard's class?

[Twinky]

Managed to get a copy of the article Waysider mentioned. Also discovered that it is written about (though more articulately) in a chapter in JCNG). On re-reading it - it's all fluff and puff, showing off.

I also remember studying this in some "depth" in rez under the scholarly LCM. We spent some weeks on it, I think, and digressed widely from John all over the place.

Thanks for offers. I think this matter is now closed.

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Spirit and Truth Fellowship's book on One God and One Lord attempts to be more academicly more cerebral than Wierwille but still doctrinally wrong. One of the chapters and then an appendix tries to convince why Jesus Christ can never be God in human flesh. Grasser and Schoenheit(I don't think Lynn offered any no insight but his name is on the book cover)were convinced that Trinitarianism was heresy and blasemphemy. Of course, they were wrong but who could convince them otherwise?

[WordWolf]

Of course, John 1 dovetails nicely with Hebrews 1-which says nothing about a Trinity-

but who could convince a conventional Christian?

[Twinky]

I have a friend who is exploring Christianity. Did an Alpha course (he thought helpful, but I thought an utter waste of time...but it's his show), then those who wanted worked through bits of Philippians and they're now doing gospel of John.

So the first session was all about how John 1 proves that Jesus=word=God. Also Jesus = light of world...and a few other things. John is a great gospel with some rivetting stuff in it, but hardly the place for a novice to start. They could have chosen any of Mat, Mk or Luke had they so wished - why go for the hardest? This is for a bunch of people most of whom have never read a Bible at all, perhaps hardly even go to church; but have an interest and want to explore a little.

Friend came back wanting to look at my interlinear. Knows Greek and read John in the Greek. Has checked out some sources on line.

The controversy and obscure readings have already made him want to throw the whole Christian thing up as a load of nonsense - if Christians can't agree about that - why bother with any of it?

[Sunesis]

Well, I will respectfully disagree here about John 1 and the Gospel of John in general.

There is a theory, which I tend to agree with, that John was written for Greek Gentiles and Gentiles (i.e., not jewish) throughout the world today. Why? Because all over that Gospel John is always explaining Jewish customs and traditions, which would not need explaining if you were Jewish. He is always giving jewish "background" for a reader who knows nothing of Jewish customs/beliefs/traditions.

It has been said the John is the Gospel to the World. Those who have never read the Bible, many are inspired to read John. Of course, I wouldn't be a immersing someone who wanted to learn about God/Christ in the Greek language just yet. A word here, a word there, sure.

It is also thought to be written for Gentiles, or "Abraham's seed" because of the Greek terminology, such as words and concepts like "Logos." If you were a Greek Gentile reading that, it would have given you some serious food for thought.

I believe there is a reason in time, why Christ was inserted in human history when he was - it was not random coincidence. Just as a Gentile had no part of the law, and the Jewish law wasn't the "prism" through which much of the Gentile world view was shaped, yet, the Gentile philosophical world view would have understood John - especially the first few verses regarding the Logos.

If we are going to get into a doctrinal you're a numbnutz if you believe/disbelieve the trinitarian references in the first few verses, maybe this should go to doctrinal.

But, whatever your belief in that area, to me John is an introductory and explanatory gospel for a gentile or someone who has never heard, or knows nothing of Jesus but would like to. Millions of people have gotten born again reading John. Whether one decides to go further that's up to them, but I have recommended John to people.

John shows Jesus as the Son of God. And many have seen and been given understanding regarding who Christ is from John.

[Twinky]

It is also thought to be written for Gentiles, or "Abraham's seed" because of the Greek terminology, such as words and concepts like "Logos." If you were a Greek Gentile reading that, it would have given you some serious food for thought.

Can you expand on that a little, Sunesis? What was "logos" to the Greeks? You imply some fuller meaning.

I like John. A lot of my research paper spent time there. Really got into it. It's just not where I'd want to start anyone. Perhaps I'm too aware of the "baggage" that comes with the first few verses of chapter 1. It's not actually so difficult, if you don't look at it through theologically tinted glasses.

[sirguessalot]

maybe saying Christ is an incarnation of the Logos is another way of saying he is an incarnation of the Aum and Tao.

[Broken Arrow]

I have a friend who is exploring Christianity. Did an Alpha course (he thought helpful, but I thought an utter waste of time...but it's his show), then those who wanted worked through bits of Philippians and they're now doing gospel of John.

So the first session was all about how John 1 proves that Jesus=word=God. Also Jesus = light of world...and a few other things. John is a great gospel with some rivetting stuff in it, but hardly the place for a novice to start. They could have chosen any of Mat, Mk or Luke had they so wished - why go for the hardest? This is for a bunch of people most of whom have never read a Bible at all, perhaps hardly even go to church; but have an interest and want to explore a little.

Friend came back wanting to look at my interlinear. Knows Greek and read John in the Greek. Has checked out some sources on line.

The controversy and obscure readings have already made him want to throw the whole Christian thing up as a load of nonsense - if Christians can't agree about that - why bother with any of it?

I think anyone would be hard put to find any religion where all adherents agree on even the basic tenets. Unless, of course, that religion is a cult. Just my opinion.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Broken Arrow

[Broken Arrow]

Can you expand on that a little, Sunesis? What was "logos" to the Greeks? You imply some fuller meaning.

It's not actually so difficult, if you don't look at it through theologically tinted glasses.

I think you hit the nail right on the head Twinky. Many of us hear all of this "mumbo jumbo" when we read certain sections of the Bible that takes the simplicity of it away. Not everything is as complicated as TWI tried to make it. As far as logos, I'll look forward along with you on Sunesis' insight on this. If I may say briefly, logos in the Greek implies much more than simply a word. It also implies the idea, intent, and "heart" of what a particular word communicates. Greek philosophers of the time discussed this concept often, and Sunesis is correct in saying that a Greek audience would be very familiar with this type of wording. I'll leave it at that.

[Jim]

Yawn...

[socks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Not to jump frog here, sunesis will reply, but this page gives a fair history of "logos" and it's development of meaning, etc.

Interpreting it to mean in John, that Jesus is "God" is yet another application of meaning to the word.

Another thought - IMO the emphasis in TWI's research on "pros" doesn't really delineate the "together with yet distinctly independent" in such a way that it would completely eliminate the trinitarian interpretation from that section.

For Jesus Christ to "be" the "logos" He doesn't have to be God or a God. I believe it's more of a philisophical concept dealing with purpose, expression and fulfillment myself. Some Christians often get their hackles up over "philisophical reasonings" (those hackles!) and shoot straight for the most literal interpretation of scripture possible but some things in the bible aren't literal to begin with. "logos" is one of those IMO.

One of the most fundamental concepts to understanding "life" is that it occurs in single, separate instances. Each instance begins and terminates on it's own, is non-repeatable and carries with it an essence that can be shared but never to the extent that two consciousness instances become one, or two or three, as the same instance. Memory, cognition and anticipation are all unique to the one individual instance of life. I believe at this point that life itself, the creation we see around us and that we are, is a clear reflection and declaration of God, the Life, the Pneuma.

"Jehovah", God the creator in relationship with His creation emphasizes this singular identity throughout the records collected in the O.T.

For Jesus to "be" God requires "mystery", a level of understanding that we can't achieve thinking directly about it, in fact there's religious thought that describes the "mystery of the triune godhead" as something of a meditative exercise that through it's impossibility leads one into a more "divine" awareness of God.

I really don't see that happening but I get the idea. For me, the actual straightforward interpretation of the N.T. is enough to give me mental and emotional pause. :)

Dunno if I've added or subtracted to the discussion, but here goes.

[Broken Arrow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Dunno if I've added or subtracted to the discussion, but here goes.

Of course you're adding to the discussion. I find your insights interesting. I'm not saying I agree with you on all points, but I appreciate your comments.

[krys]

So what if you're bored Broken Arrow. The participants on this thread are discussing something of interest to them. If you're not into it....leave the thread alone and walk away from it.

[teachmevp]

Didn't them Greek dudes change that constellation Libra, which was anciently the Alter, to a set of scales?

[Twinky]

This is turning into a much more interesting thread than I'd expected; and I really welcome your views and comments.

Krys, I don't think Broken Arrow is bored; but Jim is.

Socks, appreciate your insight.

The "logos" embodiment of thoughts, ideas, concepts...kinda what we were taught in TWI. What I always understood anyway. And an idea is clearly there before its actual embodiment; there are many preparatory steps along the way before the envisaged embodiment. An artist "sees" or "envisages" a picture before s/he paints it; an architect "sees" a building before s/he designs it; an athlete "sees" that winning line during training. A world dictator "sees" his empire before its conquest.

Even mere human beings envisage their families , and how they hope to live, way before any children are conceived.

It's amazing how some Christians see Jesus as being the "Word" and flying around in the sky before his birth; but the written "Word" (pages of KJV perhaps?) wasn't also floating around somewhere in outer space.

[Broken Arrow]

So what if you're bored Broken Arrow. The participants on this thread are discussing something of interest to them. If you're not into it....leave the thread alone and walk away from it.

I think you may have me mistaken with someone else. I'm not the person who wrote "yawn". If you look closer, that's under a different name.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Broken Arrow

[Sunesis]

Thank you Socks!! I always love your contributions. You have much wisdom -I have always thought that.

Twinky, I did not forget you. Your question made me think - how do I explain this? I opened my mouth and now I'm called on it :) Socks is a hard act to follow :), but here goes.

First, some background:

Once upon a time, the Greeks broke away from mythology as their world view and turned to reason and evidence as their world view aided by various philosophers. Now, with this new world view in mind, they began a quest to find the underlying cause of the cosmos - this was "Logos." The underlying cause of the cosmos became the "Logos."

We also have Plato's thoughts (revelation?) of forms and ideas that says: things in the physical world are "forms" in the physical world, but the true substance, is in heaven - we are a form that is a manifestation of our "true human essence" which is heavenly, so to speak. We are not the "real" deal. We are not the ultimate reality. The ultimate reality is not this world - but the forms in the physical world reflect the reality of the Cosmos - God's world. For example, take my cat. He is here, I love him - but what is his true essence? What is the true "essence" of Cat? What is God's reality of "Cat"? If I saw "cat essence" in heaven - the true reality - I would be blown away. Cats in the physical realm are copies, or forms, of the original, true, heavenly reality.

Just as God said, "let us make man in our image" our true essence is heavenly.

Heraclitus, around 500 bc defined logos as "God's reason."

Philo's use of logos around 25 bc included references to Plato's world of Forms, the mind of God.

Logos was the ultimate underlying form, essence, or reason of the cosmos. It is what holds everything together.

Look at it this way: God is a mind, an idea. Out from him, like a telescope, comes Logos - the unifying principle of everything, but it is manifest - it is the idea, the mind of God come to life - a manifestation. It created the heaven and earth - it carried out God's purposes and ideas in the physical realm. You could call the Logos, the Jehovah of the OT if you wanted.

Out from this, like the telescope, comes the Holy Spirit that witnesses and testifies to us, those things.

So, now, back to John 1. No problem, we read, in the beginning was God and the Logos was with him... blah, blah, blah - everyone knows that John. We continue: blah, blah... AND THE LOGOS BECAME FLESH - WHOA! Stop! Hold it!!!! Does.Not.Compute!!!! I need to think!!!...

Now you are telling me that the Logos, the manifestation of the mind of the universe (God), the ultimate, underlying Form (essence) of the Cosmos has now been revealed!!! To us!!! A special revelation of God appearing as: the divine, promised savior clothed in human form. Whoa!!! Much to think about here - let's read on and see what this John guy has to say... "You shall call his name 'Emanuel' - God with us"...

Think, "a body thou hast prepared me" Psalms - prophecy of the coming Savior.

What a mindblower - or today, we'd say: WTF??????

So, sorry for the length Twinky, I hope this answered your question and made a little bit of sense.

I think God is so much bigger than we think. :)

Edited September 24, 2010 by Sunesis

[socks]

Twinky,that's really a great way to see it I think. (thanks sunesis!)

It's a very difficult subject to broach without getting bogged down. Dr's. of this or that cluck their academic tongues - "it's clear (so & so) doesn't know their history"...

It still requires thought and pondering, it's not as clear cut as it's made to sound by whatever side's speaking. Bullinger cracked the greek and came up with a trinitarian view. The same language was used by VPW to interpret it non-trinitarian. And Bullinger's Companion stuff is 101 level stuff, not that complicated to get.

Parents will look at a child and say "I love you, I've always loved you, long before you were even born I always wanted you! It took awhile, we waited and then finally we knew the time was right and what a day it was! I've never been so happy as when I saw you for the first time - it was like my whole life, everything I'd done was for you, for that moment. Nothing will ever replace you, remember that - and everything I do is for you so that you can succeed. If you ever need anything, I'm here for you and will always be. Someday you'll have a family - and you'll know what I mean. I love you".

The child that hears that is no less my progeny, my child, of me and by me, for not "being me". They are as much me as they could ever be. I don't have and never can have the same relationship with others that I do with my children.

The familial relationship that is described by Jesus - that He uniquely taught and spoke of God as "Father" is such a powerful view into Their relationship that He clearly declares - I think it's easy to gloss over and assume. Yet that was truly an astounding declaration to make.

[sirguessalot]

maybe he simply realized (by experiencing) how everything, including himself, was a manifestation of the eternal logos.

and his full realization and embodiment of the logos is what his history was waiting for...if even only for a few years.

not him, personally, per se. although he could not leave himself out. nor can we. but what he finally woke up and noticed.

for thousands of years, waves of ancient humans died in search of such a full direct experience of causal forms.

the story of jesus is story of one who found it and came back...somehow trekked where no man had gone before.

and somehow added to what buddha found...what the philosophers found...what moses found.

someone called him lord of lords because he bypassed them all...because he stood on all their shoulders.

Edited September 24, 2010 by sirguessalot

[socks]

You're so right sunesis - "...the Logos, the manifestation of the mind of the universe (God), the ultimate, underlying Form (essence) of the Cosmos has now been revealed!!! To us!! "

Pretty fundamentally basically a WTF moment comes with each word of that! :)

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

I have a friend who is exploring Christianity. Did an Alpha course (he thought helpful, but I thought an utter waste of time...but it's his show), then those who wanted worked through bits of Philippians and they're now doing gospel of John.

So the first session was all about how John 1 proves that Jesus=word=God. Also Jesus = light of world...and a few other things. John is a great gospel with some rivetting stuff in it, but hardly the place for a novice to start. They could have chosen any of Mat, Mk or Luke had they so wished - why go for the hardest? This is for a bunch of people most of whom have never read a Bible at all, perhaps hardly even go to church; but have an interest and want to explore a little.

Friend came back wanting to look at my interlinear. Knows Greek and read John in the Greek. Has checked out some sources on line.

The controversy and obscure readings have already made him want to throw the whole Christian thing up as a load of nonsense - if Christians can't agree about that - why bother with any of it?

Twinky, I have done Alpha, Reality, Christianity Explored(Rico Tice), Open Home/Bible, Beginnings(Rob Weber), Christian Believer(United Methodist), Purpose Driven Life, Foundations(Saddleback Church), and Beta(Neil Anderson), all far better than PFAL/WAP ever could be.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Thomas Loy Bumgarner