I don't want to step into your logic, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
"John was a Judahite and did not converse or mix with the Greek culture or their language."
Not true! John was from Galilee, and was probably bilingual. By the time he wrote his gospel he was an old man and had been living outside Palestine for many years (mainly in Ephesus) so by then probably spoke better Greek than Aramaic!
"Now of course if you believe that the word (Word) is actually Jesus himself based on no scriptural evidence whatsoever, then Jesus somehow created himself into a human being which I think does not make any sense at all."
Well, it's based on the first chapter of John which you seem to be determined to mis-read! Who has said anything about Jesus "creating himself"? The Word became flesh.
"I would not get hung up on the translation of John 1:1-14 to be really exact or precise. God's word 'became,' 'was made into,' 'shared,' 'possessed,' 'went into' Jesus, are all fine ways of conveying the intended meaning."
Nobody gets anywhere by ignoring the meaning of the original language. Why not just make up your own Bible, if you're going to do that? The word in question means 'became' or 'happened' (depending on context) - it cannot mean 'shared', 'possessed' or 'went into'. So these are not legitimate ways of "conveying the intended meaning".
Well Deborah, why did you respond with these accusations that apparently shows some contempt for my post?
Someone that opens their response saying that someone does not know what they are talking about had better be prepared to explain themselves with some specifics and substance in their rebuttal. You clearly did not do this.
You said, “Not true! John was from Galilee, and was probably bilingual. By the time he wrote his gospel he was an old man and had been living outside Palestine for many years (mainly in Ephesus) so by then probably spoke better Greek than Aramaic!”
Well first off, just because I did not say John was from Galilee has nothing to do with the fact that he was a Judahite, right? They are different ideas. My point did not require to point out exactly where he came from. I wanted you to know he was a Judahite to build my point.
If you read back again, I was saying that John was biased to his Judahite and Hebrew roots in the meaning of ‘logos.’ His culture was not Greek of course and would think in his native cultural roots in the main. Yes, he was from Galilee although still a Judahite of course. You were clearly too premature to judge and draw a conclusion on my point when you actually did not know it. And yes, I reckon he was well versed in Greek as well, as you said. I think you just did not pick up on the point I was making concerning how John used the word ‘logos.’ He did not used it through the lens of the typical Greek philosophical view of Plato or Aristotle.
So, a question or two to you is this. What do you think this Greek transliterated word ‘logos’ means to you, and why?
You said, “Well, it's based on the first chapter of John which you seem to be determined to mis-read! Who has said anything about Jesus "creating himself"? The Word
became flesh.”
I am determined to mis-read John Chapter One you say. That’s a very bold statement. You have to explain yourself don’t you think? It is clear that you do not understand my post since you said, ‘who said anything about Jesus creating Jesus. ‘
Can you explain to me what John 1:1-3 and 1:14a means to you, at least? Just spilling out accusations that I’m doing this or that is not a useful way of conversing with someone.
You said, “Nobody gets anywhere by ignoring the meaning of the original language. Why not just make up your own Bible, if you're going to do that? The word in question means 'became' or 'happened' (depending on context) - it
cannot mean 'shared', 'possessed' or 'went into'. So these are
not legitimate ways of "conveying the intended meaning".
So, if I was ignoring the original language, then I guess you mean the English transliterated words, then please tell me where I went wrong? I guess answering what John 1:14a means to you is sufficient.
One major issue here of course, as you must know is the meaning of the Greek transliterated word ‘logos. Apparently, you believe it means a person, and specifically Jesus Christ. Logos can never mean a person, let alone, Jesus Christ. Instead of throwing out accusations about my words you apparently cannot support, I would challenge you to study this area more deeply and tell me why you apparently think Jesus is actually the logos? I reckon you might be a Trinitarian that maybe 'locked' into a wrote and taught meaning on this subject. If not ,then let me be excused by making this assumption.
Thanks
Bless you,
APAK
