Re: God and the Word of God
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:23 am
Correction: I meant to say "how we could better understand John 1" vs. "translate".
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
When you go to the library, you find all sorts of things - this one is trash but it was a tremendous find of all sorts of writings, giving us an indication of how diverse the groups were and what sort of things they believed. I'm not suggesting those things have truth value, but understanding the errors of the day can help understand the context of what John was "writing into."dwight92070 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:19 amSo the Gospel of Thomas was discovered at Nag Hammadi, with it's early collection of 114 "sayings of Jesus". Number 114 is:
14) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become
a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will
enter the kingdom of heaven."
The Gospel
According to Thomas
I agree with you that we should look, to a certain extent, at historical background, customs, and even beliefs of early "Christians", but when you come across blasphemous lies about what Jesus said, then you know why these writings were considered heresy. How about this one?
Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and
place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son
of the living one, and you will not be afraid"
Could you explain how we can better translate John 1, by reading this blasphemous trash?
Some things are clearly understand in their time but can be colored by traditions of men and shifts in culture and language. Anyone who spends even a little bit of time looking into the various views of this passage (or even just the term logos) over the millennia can hardly say it's a simple straightforward didactic teaching on the origin and deity of Jesus that should be plainly evident to everyone who reads it.
The assertion one cannot possibly know what the Bible is saying without reading a hundred other opinions of people many of whom were unregenerate and often even demonized, is about the most unbiblical thing one could even say.darinhouston wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:08 pmSome things are clearly understand in their time but can be colored by traditions of men and shifts in culture and language. Anyone who spends even a little bit of time looking into the various views of this passage (or even just the term logos) over the millennia can hardly say it's a simple straightforward didactic teaching on the origin and deity of Jesus that should be plainly evident to everyone who reads it.
Certainly there are things that can be known clearly on face value from the Scriptures themselves, but it's simply true that some things require historic context (and all things require at least some consideration of it). We do this all the time without realizing it - it's just that some context is well understood.dizerner wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:51 pmThe assertion one cannot possibly know what the Bible is saying without reading a hundred other opinions of people many of whom were unregenerate and often even demonized, is about the most unbiblical thing one could even say.darinhouston wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:08 pmSome things are clearly understand in their time but can be colored by traditions of men and shifts in culture and language. Anyone who spends even a little bit of time looking into the various views of this passage (or even just the term logos) over the millennia can hardly say it's a simple straightforward didactic teaching on the origin and deity of Jesus that should be plainly evident to everyone who reads it.
"I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.
Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. (Matt. 11:25-26 NKJ)
The historical-grammatical method is a modern Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the biblical authors' original intended meaning in the text.[1] According to the historical-grammatical method, if based on an analysis of the grammatical style of a passage (with consideration to its cultural, historical, and literary context), it appears that the author intended to convey an account of events that actually happened, then the text should be taken as representing history; passages should only be interpreted symbolically, poetically, or allegorically if to the best of our understanding, that is what the writer intended to convey to the original audience.[2] It is the primary method of interpretation for many conservative Protestant exegetes who reject the historical-critical method to various degrees (from the complete rejection of historical criticism of some fundamentalist Protestants to the moderated acceptance of it in the Roman Catholic tradition since the Divino afflante Spiritu encyclical letter),[3] in contrast to the overwhelming reliance on historical-critical interpretation in biblical studies at the academic level.
I think "in the beginning" is the beginning of the subject of John. And the subject of Mark and John's Epistles and so forth - the gospels -- the subject is the Messiah and the ministry of Christ.dwight92070 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:08 amI need to correct myself again. There is, it appears, new information in John 1. We know from Revelation that Jesus is the Word, but we don't know when He was called that, or at least when He was first called that. John tells us: "In the beginning". We might ask, "When was that?" Well, since John tells us "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.", we see that the Word is eternal, because God is eternal. Therefore, we can deduce that Jesus, the Word -God, has always existed. That is, at least, His Spirit, has always existed. But His body and His name, Jesus, it appears, only came into existence through Mary.
On the other hand, even that information could have been deduced from other verses, but, John "nails it down", so that there is no doubt, and even more confirmation.
Darin, since you have studied all the other information that you recommend, what is your conclusion concerning John 1, after looking at all those other sources?