The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: SethTsaddik

The issue with the whole trinity thing is "equality"

Jesus never makes himself equal to God, in fact HE says three times in John that he is NOT equal to God, and in Matthew he states that "all power was GIVEN to him" which means something greater gave him said power.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus has his own God.... God does not have a God

the Trinity is invalid

Yes, this is true and me and Priest are discussing this now.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why not throw up the other verses that infer that Christ I'd part of the trinity

Wellll....crap.
I can't just let this one float by without remark.....

I "throw up" whenever I get overwhelmed by the ignorance of people who dwell on this nonsense.

I don't know why I'm so compelled to argue with you people, but I am. Consider it an effort to educate you all. Before it's too late. Please, PLEASE, get reality through your head.

REINCARNATION is real.

Jesus said so.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Interesting is how you seem to make the whole argument of the trinity come down to one verse
There are many others in scripture you seem to have neglected

Why not throw up the other verses that infer that Christ I'd part of the trinity

It's only fair because this is THE verse when it comes to "proving" Jesus is God.

There are other passages that prove he is not but this thread is about this specific verse for a damn good reason.

It's interesting.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why not throw up the other verses that infer that Christ I'd part of the trinity

Wellll....crap.
I can't just let this one float by without remark.....

I "throw up" whenever I get overwhelmed by the ignorance of people who dwell on this nonsense.

I don't know why I'm so compelled to argue with you people, but I am. Consider it an effort to educate you all. Before it's too late. Please, PLEASE, get reality through your head.

REINCARNATION is real.

Jesus said so.

I don't know why you feel the need to address everyone as you don't know everyone's beliefs but reincarnation is any life after death.

So yeah, Jesus speaks of reincarnation, sort of.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: SethTsaddik

The issue with the whole trinity thing is "equality"

Jesus never makes himself equal to God, in fact HE says three times in John that he is NOT equal to God, and in Matthew he states that "all power was GIVEN to him" which means something greater gave him said power.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus has his own God.... God does not have a God

the Trinity is invalid

Yes, this is true and me and Priest are discussing this now.

There is no argument... it comes down to their dogmatic beliefs verses what the bible actually says

You'll hear the I AM argument... Jesus said before abraham was I AM... so he must be God

In reality it only shows his pre-existance...

Then theres the "thomas called him God" argument... which he probably didn't

They worshiped him and Jesus had no issue with it is another usual argument. Well, he did claim to be the son of God... their messiah... i don't see a problem with that.

I've been through this so many times i can't even count... heard every argument possible

nothing has ever come close to convincing me of a Triune God

And theres a ton of evidence in the book against the idea

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am quite fond of the alternative views of the Logos [2]. Your OP is definitely touching on some pretty interesting concepts.

From what I can figure,
the first occurrence is "Ton-Theon"
and the second occurrence is "Kai-Theos".

En (In)
archē (beginning)
ēn (was)
ho (the)
Logos (Word)
kai (and)
ho (the)
Logos (Word)
ēn (was)
pros (with)
ton (definitive article "the")
Theon (God)
kai (and)
Theos (God)
ēn (was)
ho (the)
Logos (Word)

There is some pretty interesting debate on the linguistics and grammar listed in the "Source text and translations" tab of; Wiki John 1:1.

a reply to: Akragon

I have been meaning to look up the original Greek of Thomas saying my lord and my God, I guarantee there's an explanation.

Jesus also could have just been being deliberately cryptic to his antagonizers to stupify them. "Before Abraham w as I am" sounds meant to confuse. Jesus is actually chronically cryptic and proud of it so I don't see this as a claim to anything non human.

A claim to pre existence is a best case scenario for the New Testament I would even say. I personally prefer what I just said as his intention, I don't think it is the only case of him doing that either so is precedent.

But this original Greek having been deliberately mistranslated is something that would take a jury 3 minutes to convict if tried. I would say a bombshell if anyone actually cared.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

you do not believe the Bible anyway so what can we expect from you than a bunch of non Biblical nonsense?

There are more verses than John 1:1-3 that prove he is God in the flesh.

But then you hate Christianity, and the God of the Holy Bible.

You are a Muslim and therefore have only one reason for even starting a thread such as this, to convert people to Murderous Islam.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am quite fond of the alternative views of the Logos [2]. Your OP is definitely touching on some pretty interesting concepts.

Thank you.

From what I can figure,
the first occurrence is "Ton-Theon"
and the second occurrence is "Kai-Theos".

En (In)
archē (beginning)
ēn (was)
ho (the)
Logos (Word)
kai (and)
ho (the)
Logos (Word)
ēn (was)
pros (with)
ton (definitive article "the")
Theon (God)
kai (and)
Theos (God)
ēn (was)
ho (the)
Logos (Word)

There is some pretty interesting debate on the linguistics and grammar listed in the "Source text and translations" tab of; Wiki John 1:1.

Why is the ''a god" absent from your translation, I couldn't help but notice?

About the Logos, I feel like Philos Logos was incorporated into Jesus story. It's hard not to. Melchizedek is mentioned as a type of Logos and certain epithets and characteristics match to the point I can't see why Philo is not a Christian Prophet and Canonical. Especially in Hebrews, a rambling piece of nonsense that is like a Hellenistic Greek attempt at Midrash that would be and is ridiculed by Jews and Rabbis.

Philo is a better author than any of the NT authors and I didn't get him until I read a good portion of the Zohar that for some reason has made the Qur'an and Philo make more sense, unless it's a coincidence.

Philo originated Hebrew Neo Platonic Logos philosophy, his Logos was more of a heavenly being and intercessor that would emerge in later Sethian ''Gnostic" scripture and be plucked by ''John" for the purpose of deifying Jesus, copied for characteristics.

Logos also has a greater meaning than just word, my hope is to get my hands on some Plotinus, I believe is his name or find out if any Zeno is extant.

But I think Plotinus had the best system of emanations, I just know a little about it but he could be another influence on all Sufi, Kabbalist and old Gnostic schools of thought, and in its early years Christianity.

There were many Christians who were interested in Neo Platonic philosophy at one time although some would ridicule it and everything that moved not Christian, it was so revered that it was invented Pythagoras was a disciple of Moses or Abraham and the Greek philosophers got their ideas from the Old Testament Prophets.

So they were not quick to admit it but envied Greek wisdom, crediting the Jews for it though which is absurd as Zohar and Kabbalah borrowed from it in 12-1300 AD.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: SethTsaddik

you do not believe the Bible anyway so what can we expect from you than a bunch of non Biblical nonsense?

It's not about me or my beliefs, this is not NON Biblical nonsense it's the actual words of John 1.

I have to ask, do you know how to be honest or do you not care at all about facts? You take a simple subject and make it about me because the subject upsets your beliefs.

Which I can't prevent but can pity. Don't read it if you don't want to know.

There are more verses than John 1:1-3 that prove he is God in the flesh.

No, there are not. But this is the fundamental one and most used to try.

But then you hate Christianity, and the God of the Holy Bible.

You are a Muslim and therefore have only one reason for even starting a thread such as this, to convert people to Murderous Islam.

Murderous Islam?

Now I now you are an angry lunatic, which doesn't do me any good.

I am not converting or trying to convert anyone, interesting topics deserve attention and it makes a good topic of discussion for us sober minded, sane people.

I don't hate anyone, not even you.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

This was not my own translation, it is the translation provided by BibleHub's John 1:1 Greek Text Analysis.

The concordance references both "Theon" and "Theos" as Word # 2316, giving a definition of "God", "a god", and "divine".

Many scholars, who are exceedingly more knowledgeable than myself, have offered varying translations of John 1:1.

"the Word was with God, and God was the Word."

"the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

"the Word was with God, and a god was the Word."

"the Word was with God, and the Word was divine."



Although I do enjoy and appreciate the varying historic views of the Logos, I am partial to H.P. Blavatsky's teachings on the subject:

"There is no differentiation with the First Logos; differentiation only begins in latent World-Thought, with the Second Logos, and receives its full expression, i. e., becomes the "Word" made flesh--with the Third."

"The point within the circle which has neither limit nor boundaries, nor can it have any name or attribute. This first unmanifested Logos is simultaneous with the line drawn across the diameter of the Circle. The first line or diameter is the Mother-Father; from it proceeds the Second Logos, which contains in itself the Third Manifested Word."

"There seems to be great confusion and misunderstanding concerning the First and Second Logos. The first is the already present yet still unmanifested potentiality in the bosom of Father-Mother; the Second is the abstract collectivity of creators called “Demiurgi” by the Greeks or the Builders of the Universe. The third logos is the ultimate differentiation of the Second and the individualization of Cosmic Forces, of which Fohat is the chief; for Fohat is the synthesis of the Seven Creative Rays or Dhyan Chohans which proceed from the third Logos."

"Theosophical cosmogony and theogony adopts the concept of Logos in explaining the emergence of the universe. But it does so by identifying three different kinds of Logoi. The Secret Doctrine states that at the root of everything is the Absolute, of which nothing can be said. This is equivalent to Parabrahman of the Hindus, the Ain or sometimes Ain Soph of the Kabbalists. Within this Absolute is the germ of potential called the unmanifested First Logos, which is not a Being but a Be-ness. The Second Logos is the manifest-unmanifest stage, where there is the germ of differentiation between Spirit and Matter. The Third Logos is the manifested Logos, the Cosmic Ideation. From this Logos arise the septenary principles upon which the universe is founded. These seven principles are also referred to as the seven Planetary Logoi. It is only in the stage of the Third Logos that the universe starts in its manvantaric or manifest activity; prior to that the two Logoi are but states of unmanifest potencies. It is the Creative Deity from which the universe was born."

Theosopedia "Logos"

Theosophy Wiki "Logos"

a reply to: SethTsaddik


Hey Seth,
I'm no expert at any of this, so maybe you can point out what it Is I'm misunderstanding here.

The first occurrence, "with God" uses the Greek term Hotheos which properly translates to ''the god" or when using a language with capital letters just "God."

What I'm finding is that the first occurrence of "with God" is "ton Theon" not "Hotheos" Ton Theon is the second occurrence not the first in my copy.

And:

The second occurrence, "was God" is improper as Tontheos is used and not Hotheos.

In the second occurrence of the word "God" I see "Theos" without the "ho" which comes before "logos" in that phrase rather than God.

So in total the Greek I'm finding transliterates as:

En arche en ho Logos kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon kai Theos en ho Logos. (So "ho" always proceeds Logos, not Theos or Theon as I understand you to be saying, at least according to my copy and ho is attached to logos not Theos or Theon, again according to my limited understanding)

Further, I'm reading in several places that the difference between "Theos", "Theon" and the like as well as the omission/inclusion of articles direct and indirect is a function of the part of speech these words fulfill in the sentence and that this would have been a normal way to differentiate the subject from the direct object or some such to that effect. Again I'm not an expert by any means.

But here is a link to one explanation:

Link Translation Issues With John 1:1

And another:

Indefinite article John 1:1

(The above talks about "ho theos" which I couldn't find in the copy of the verse I was looking at, just "ho logos")

Seems like there are explanations, curious to know what you think of them.

Regards,

Billy

a reply to: Sahabi

I have read Isis Unveiled and enjoy much of her comments about Philo she has an obsession with classifying everything and everyone as a Kabbalist unless they are Hindu, the source of everything to her, which is fairly accurate.

I like what she says about Philo, that scholars miss that his apparent contradictions were intentional and for good reason. I happen to think many ancient authors did that, the author of Acts for instance.

She loves Gnza Rabba too. But her Essene and Kabbalah obsession bugs me because she links it to Chaldea and that is fine, I have seen the tree of Life in ancient Assyrian and Babylonian steles, but Kabbalah didn't exist until long after Islam and the Sufis instructed the Jews in Greek philosophy and basically ressurected it, Chaldean influence is very unlikely and not the actual inspiration for Kabbalah.

Kabba Allah Kabbalah.

Sufis and Neo Platonic influence is more apparent.

Oh and the Essenes were Kabbalists too, those two things she seems to apply in the weirdest places.

Overall a good book, Einstein's favorite, is it that or Secret Doctrine you found her on the Logos?

a reply to: imwilliam

I am no expert in Greek, I really said all I know, which is not that difficult.

You probably need to find an older MS.

a reply to: Sahabi

She does properly connect Ain Soph and Zurvan, Parabrahm.

Way ahead of her time, I like Meads translation work and books, he was her assistant.

It's interesting that she speaks of multiple Logos, maybe like every word is an act of creation, my guess based on the paragraph you posted.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why not throw up the other verses that infer that Christ I'd part of the trinity

Wellll....crap.
I can't just let this one float by without remark.....

I "throw up" whenever I get overwhelmed by the ignorance of people who dwell on this nonsense.

I don't know why I'm so compelled to argue with you people, but I am. Consider it an effort to educate you all. Before it's too late. Please, PLEASE, get reality through your head.

REINCARNATION is real.

Jesus said so.

There's that high horse again. There is a difference in making a case for your opinion, and just telling people that they are wrong because you are right. It's not your job to educate us like kindergarteners.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Alright, we're on the same page here. No matter how we slice or dice it, all of the great philosophers and sages who expressed a view of the Logos, no matter how different, they all gave us many insights and much to consider. Logos as Demiurge,... Logos as Jesus,... Logos as an emanation from the One/Absolute/God,... Logos as a principle construct,... Logos as manifestive force,... Logos as a manifestation of Nous,... Logos as vibrational creative sound,... all good stuff to consider.

source of everything to her, which is fairly accurate.

Except you forgot Buddhism! She's big on Buddhism too. H.P.B. even received acclaim from Buddhist Adepts and Lamas.

But at the heart of it all, is the reach for the same Light that all mystics and spiritualists turn their gaze.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Hi hi, sorry I'm late to the meeting....

Searching For The Science Behind Reincarnation

REVEALED: The scientific PROOF that shows reincarnation is REAL

Evidence of Reincarnation


I'll just leave these here. Remember, Priest, that you can avail yourself of the search term "Proof of Reincarnation" typed into any search engine you choose....or ask any librarian at the reference desk at your local library.....

you will find an overwhelming number of books and other publications that substantiate the FACTS that reincarnation is real. Even Jesus said so.

That's all very cute Buzzy, but I believe you posted this in the wrong thread. This discussion is about whether or not Jesus is co-equal with God.

The Trinity is the reflection of God in different densities. The Father manifests in the Divine realm (highest density), the Holy Spirit in the Astral, and the Son in the corporeal (lowest). They exist simultaneously interwoven.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I'd say calling 3 of something 1 is not possible in a literal sense.

Well, they aren't one person. In fact, they are revealed as three separate personalities, but they share the same divine essence. Each member of the Trinity is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Just, Righteous, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, and Sovereign. They all have the same knowledge and same virtue, so it is that which makes three separate personalities One.

We have the 99 aspects of God, we just don't divide God into different persons. Every person has qualities or aspects and Allah has 99 that are traditional in Islam.

I've never counted the aspects of Yehwah Elohim, but I know they are many, nevertheless, this is not the same as essence. Aspects are simply components of individual personalities.

I get it, but it doesn't work in the proper translation. There is no equality between God who knows all and Jesus who does not.

Jesus also refers to his Father as his God.

If God did the same with Jesus, you'd have a good case.

He doesn't. Christ is a servant.

The Son only subjects His will to the Father, for the sake of executing the Father's plan. It is a temporary subjection, and the Father reciprocates by exulting the Son as ruler.

To address this point, I must quote Psalm 110.

1The LORD (Yehwah) says to my Lord (Ladoni):
“Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.”

5The Lord (Adonai) is at Thy right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.

6He will judge among the nations,
He will fill them with corpses,
He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.

Christ follows the Father's plan until the Father makes His enemies His Son's footstool. At that point, the Son becomes the Judge among the nations, and only God is the righteous judge (Psa 75:7).

So we see the Father serving the Son after the Son serves the Father, and the Son becomes the Judge, which is a title reserved only for God...because Christ is just as much God as the Father is.