1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
Jesus and God the father are two people, at least, I think. Their nature is what makes them God and they are one because communion with God or with other people, such that they cannot be forcibly divided, is an experience even a human can attain.
But why using the word "God" both for the person (Father) and the belonging in the nature of God?
It means that one possible way of expressing the fundamentally inexpressible transcendent nature of God which precedes all understanding and existence itself is "the Word was with God, and the Word was God". You will never get an "answer", there's no answer and no question.
I'm just trying to understand how the Word can be with God and be God simultaneously. Are you saying it's not understandable?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Because their nature is utterly identical
ong ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son,[a] whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains[b] all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
The Son Is Superior to Angels
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
‘You are my Son;
today I have begotten you’?
Or again,
‘I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son’?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’
7 Of the angels he says,
‘He makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.’
8 But of the Son he says,
‘Your throne, O God, is[c] for ever and ever,
and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’
10 And,
‘In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing[e] they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.’
13 But to which of the angels has he ever said,
‘Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?
14 Are not all angels[f] spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
This in response to your question >But why using the word "God" both for the person (Father) and the belonging in the nature of God?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
This in response to your question >But why using the word "God" both for the person (Father) and the belonging in the nature of God?
Wouldn't it be more precise and correct to say "the Word was with God and had the nature of God"? And these verses that you quoted make it even more confusing. How many Gods there are, if the Father is God and the Son is God? For me it's hard to understand that.
>Are you saying it's not understandable?
It depends what you mean by "understandable". "Word" in John is a translation of "Logos", which can mean a word but is probably better understood as "intelligible reason" or "pattern" or something like that - so God must be in some sense comprehensible, at least in parts, to a degree, and His comprehensibility is in some way an inherent part of Him. And we are made in His image, so there has to be some kind of analogous understanding.
On the other hand, how are we to understand the source from which understanding comes? Throughout the Bible, attempts to explain God's nature, or His actions, are dismissed, as He is completely transcendent, infinite qualitative difference, etc. We can see, but only dimly, and we can never fully comprehend the nature of God.
>We can see, but only dimly, and we can never fully comprehend the nature of God.
But can we understand something logical in John 1:1?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Wouldn't it be more precise and correct to say "the Word was with God and had the nature of God"?
Precise and correct is a good theme to ask after. I think the case is otherwise. I think this because perfect and complete unity, utterly blemishless and without gap, utterly without a need for implicit or explicit communication is possible. It is possible for those with the nature of God, if no one else (and I do believe it is possible for others as well).
Therefore, I think it's the case that say what was said before is the most precise and the most correct.
> How many Gods there are, if the Father is God and the Son is God?
Given that the Quran says that "God is One", I don't think that question is a fruitful line of questioning. I think it should be sufficient to know that God is unified and has no gaps in virtue.
>For me it's hard to understand that.
If you keep asking good questions, seeking knowledge, and applying your mind rationally and diligently, then I think you will come to understand everything.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>But can we understand something logical in John 1:1?
To some degree. God is Reason, and human reason has some contact with this absolute Reason, although ours is probe to error and could never encompass it fully. We can all do math, but none of us will ever know all of mathematics fully.
It's also important that being able to speak reasonably, and being able to speak reasonably *about* reason, are categorically different things, and the main point of eg Wittgenstein is that the second is technically impossible - the best we can do here is insinuate and hope for the best. Humans have been gifted Logos, but that does not mean we know what Logos "Is", let alone understanding its source. There are things beneath philosophy.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Humans have been gifted Logos, but that does not mean we know what Logos "Is", let alone understanding its source. There are things beneath philosophy.
Do you consider the verse is true necessarily? What if it's not even logical in itself?
>A word said by a person is a part of the totality of the person, right? That's what I thought.
I don't think that's right.
Why? Well, a word said by a person being the totality of the person seems wronger.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>a word said by a person
I'm not sure when or why you coupled the concept of "The word" and "said by a person" together, but I think you'd be better served by separating them.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Right, but why would the Logos be God?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't say "the Logos"
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
It sounds dumb but it never struck me as right. Something about it always felt off to me. Like when you hear someone say 20 paragraphs worth of stuff about what could be brought up and concluded in 2 or 3.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Do you consider the verse is true necessarily? What if it's not even logical in itself?
I consider the verse to be suggesting a fruitful attitude towards that which is prior to existence, and perhaps logic* as well, in the sense that treating it as "true" would be beneficial and orient you correctly in relation to that which is prior to existence, and perhaps logic*. Itcs not a syllogism, it's a vibe.
*Meaning here ideal perfect divine Logic (Logos, the Word), not the fallible and limited logic available to fallible and limited beings.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>in the sense that treating it as "true" would be beneficial and orient you correctly in relation to that which is prior to existence, and perhaps logic*
Why do you feel that?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Why do you feel that?
Because the limits of language are the limits of my world, and the meaning of the world lies outside the world. The kinds of questions you are asking cannot be answered in the way you want, all we can do is hint and suggest and feel our way towards something much less than certainty. Forget about answers, the question is beyond us.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Are you saying it's not understandable?
It depends what you mean by "understandable". "Word" in John is a translation of "Logos", which can mean a word but is probably better understood as "intelligible reason" or "pattern" or something like that - so God must be in some sense comprehensible, at least in parts, to a degree, and His comprehensibility is in some way an inherent part of Him. And we are made in His image, so there has to be some kind of analogous understanding.
On the other hand, how are we to understand the source from which understanding comes? Throughout the Bible, attempts to explain God's nature, or His actions, are dismissed, as He is completely transcendent, infinite qualitative difference, etc. We can see, but only dimly, and we can never fully comprehend the nature of God.
It means that one possible way of expressing the fundamentally inexpressible transcendent nature of God which precedes all understanding and existence itself is "the Word was with God, and the Word was God". You will never get an "answer", there's no answer and no question.
>The word was with God and the word was God
It's a bit like saying God was everything, since nothing else existed. All of our potentials was God as well. That doesn't make us God today.
But the problem
[...]
What does it mean to say that the Word was with God? I mean, "God was with God" is strange.
persists.
>Wouldn't it be more precise and correct to say "the Word was with God and had the nature of God"?
Precise and correct is a good theme to ask after. I think the case is otherwise. I think this because perfect and complete unity, utterly blemishless and without gap, utterly without a need for implicit or explicit communication is possible. It is possible for those with the nature of God, if no one else (and I do believe it is possible for others as well).
Therefore, I think it's the case that say what was said before is the most precise and the most correct.
> How many Gods there are, if the Father is God and the Son is God?
Given that the Quran says that "God is One", I don't think that question is a fruitful line of questioning. I think it should be sufficient to know that God is unified and has no gaps in virtue.
>For me it's hard to understand that.
If you keep asking good questions, seeking knowledge, and applying your mind rationally and diligently, then I think you will come to understand everything.
I see, but I was aiming at the Christian interpretation of it, because it seems strange.
>I see, but I was aiming at the Christian interpretation of it, because it seems strange.
I'm pretty sure that is the appropriate christian viewpoint. I don't think it's a latter fabrication or delusion or something hammered out by rational application of mind.
30 The Father and I are one.”
31 The israelites took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” 33 The israelites answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[a] ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand[b] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
In the beginning, when language defined the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and empty, lack of definition was over the surface of existance, and consciousness was hovering over the chaos. And a caveman said, “Light,” and there was light. An opinion saw that the light was good, and Jesus separated the light from the darkness.
In the beginning was language, and language was with the creator, and language was the creator. Jesus was with language in the beginning. Through language, all things were defined; without language, nothing was defined that has been made. In language was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Language shines on the undefined, and the undefined become defined.
The word is God. God is not part of God. God is indivisible. "God is indivisible" means that god cannot be split into two or more parts.
God overflows categories and has absolutely sovereignty.
20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22israelites demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to israelites and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both israelites and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
>The word was with God and the word was God
It's a bit like saying God was everything, since nothing else existed. All of our potentials was God as well. That doesn't make us God today.
Seriously, why are you going out of your way to ask questions like this when you haven't even put in the most basic effort of reading the key new testament books?
>I see, but I was aiming at the Christian interpretation of it, because it seems strange.
I'm pretty sure that is the appropriate christian viewpoint. I don't think it's a latter fabrication or delusion or something hammered out by rational application of mind.
30 The Father and I are one.”
31 The israelites took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” 33 The israelites answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[a] ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand[b] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
To me calling Jesus the Son of God would not be very strange, because the Word of God seems to be a part of God. But calling him God and saying that the Word is God is what is strange to me.
In the beginning, when language defined the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and empty, lack of definition was over the surface of existance, and consciousness was hovering over the chaos. And a caveman said, “Light,” and there was light. An opinion saw that the light was good, and Jesus separated the light from the darkness.
In the beginning was language, and language was with the creator, and language was the creator. Jesus was with language in the beginning. Through language, all things were defined; without language, nothing was defined that has been made. In language was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Language shines on the undefined, and the undefined become defined.
Pros ton Theon - with/toward God;
I would say means the persons of God were together in communion before creation. Being the same (God) and yet separately sharing this sameness (being with/towards God) is something I would write if I were to narrate complete communion between something non-physical and ultimately ineffable. But this has not been revealed to me. It's just what I understand from theology and Church.
>Wouldn't it be better to say that directly?
No. >Also, "persons" aren't even in the text.
Neither are parts. "Persons" is a term used to defend against heresies. >Isn't "God is with God" redundant?
Not if your point is to communicate persons of God being God.
Well... When writing a computer application - it all starts with a blank page.
At some point - I need to enter my will into the application which take the form of various instructions. We keep this in human-readable form, but I know it's compiled down into binary.
Not saying that God's word is anything like this - but I always imagined that the word was Gods will brought into the world.
>Not saying that God's word is anything like this - but I always imagined that the word was Gods will brought into the world.
Do you agree that God's will is something different than God itself by definition? A part of God, more specifically?
As far as the application / spirit is concerned. The word is God. It cannot see what inputs the instructions from beyond.
Again - as I'd imagine it...
>As far as the application / spirit is concerned. The word is God. It cannot see what inputs the instructions from beyond. Again - as I'd imagine it...
But the code isn't the programmer, right? That's why I don't see why the Word would be God.
The Word (Logos) is the Memra: https://www.israeliencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra
>In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself
Do you agree that the "manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself" is not God itself, but a part of it?
>Wouldn't it be better to say that directly?
No. >Also, "persons" aren't even in the text.
Neither are parts. "Persons" is a term used to defend against heresies. >Isn't "God is with God" redundant?
Not if your point is to communicate persons of God being God.
>No.
Why? >Neither are parts.
I thought that that word "of" would imply participation. >"Persons" is a term used to defend against heresies.
But is not in the text just as "part" is not. >Not if your point is to communicate persons of God being God.
Why would the Word of God be God?
It sounds dumb but it never struck me as right. Something about it always felt off to me. Like when you hear someone say 20 paragraphs worth of stuff about what could be brought up and concluded in 2 or 3.
So you prefer the word "Word"? The question still remains: why would the Word be God?
That doesn't show how the Word is God, and in fact shows the opposite. "The reflection of God's glory" is not God itself, and "the exact imprint of God's very being" is not God itself either. They're just related to God.
Good luck on your journey. If you continue seeking diligently and persistently, with rational application of mind and mindfulness unmuddled, you'll find what you seek.
>Do you agree that the "manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself" is not God itself, but a part of it?
I don't believe in the trinity at all. I believe in the traditional monotheist God of Judaism, but I believe Jesus is the begotten son of God. He is not God incarnate however. I think most trinitarians don't realize that the Logos is borrowed from the Memra.
> Do you agree that God's will is something different than God itself by definition? A part of God, more specifically?
I don't pretend to know God. He's beyond it...
> But the code isn't the programmer, right? That's why I don't see why the Word would be God.
I said - I believe the word is Gods will for the world. By providing instructions the will is carried out, by the world and the agents within. How do we communicate instructions? Through words. The word is God as far as the mechanisms/beings of the world are concerned.
(Again, what I think is likely to be the case in a constructed world)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
Okay. now answer OP
>part of
Heresy!
What does it mean to say that the Word was with God? I mean, "God was with God" is strange.
Tell me what you think first. No wrong answers.
I don't have an opinion. I just find it difficult to make sense of "God was with himself".
God was with itself*
Jesus and God the father are two people, at least, I think. Their nature is what makes them God and they are one because communion with God or with other people, such that they cannot be forcibly divided, is an experience even a human can attain.
But why using the word "God" both for the person (Father) and the belonging in the nature of God?
I'm just trying to understand how the Word can be with God and be God simultaneously. Are you saying it's not understandable?
Because their nature is utterly identical
ong ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son,[a] whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains[b] all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
The Son Is Superior to Angels
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
‘You are my Son;
today I have begotten you’?
Or again,
‘I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son’?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’
7 Of the angels he says,
‘He makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.’
8 But of the Son he says,
‘Your throne, O God, is[c] for ever and ever,
and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’
10 And,
‘In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing[e] they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.’
13 But to which of the angels has he ever said,
‘Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?
14 Are not all angels[f] spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
This in response to your question
>But why using the word "God" both for the person (Father) and the belonging in the nature of God?
Wouldn't it be more precise and correct to say "the Word was with God and had the nature of God"? And these verses that you quoted make it even more confusing. How many Gods there are, if the Father is God and the Son is God? For me it's hard to understand that.
>We can see, but only dimly, and we can never fully comprehend the nature of God.
But can we understand something logical in John 1:1?
>Wouldn't it be more precise and correct to say "the Word was with God and had the nature of God"?
Precise and correct is a good theme to ask after. I think the case is otherwise. I think this because perfect and complete unity, utterly blemishless and without gap, utterly without a need for implicit or explicit communication is possible. It is possible for those with the nature of God, if no one else (and I do believe it is possible for others as well).
Therefore, I think it's the case that say what was said before is the most precise and the most correct.
> How many Gods there are, if the Father is God and the Son is God?
Given that the Quran says that "God is One", I don't think that question is a fruitful line of questioning. I think it should be sufficient to know that God is unified and has no gaps in virtue.
>For me it's hard to understand that.
If you keep asking good questions, seeking knowledge, and applying your mind rationally and diligently, then I think you will come to understand everything.
>But can we understand something logical in John 1:1?
To some degree. God is Reason, and human reason has some contact with this absolute Reason, although ours is probe to error and could never encompass it fully. We can all do math, but none of us will ever know all of mathematics fully.
It's also important that being able to speak reasonably, and being able to speak reasonably *about* reason, are categorically different things, and the main point of eg Wittgenstein is that the second is technically impossible - the best we can do here is insinuate and hope for the best. Humans have been gifted Logos, but that does not mean we know what Logos "Is", let alone understanding its source. There are things beneath philosophy.
>Humans have been gifted Logos, but that does not mean we know what Logos "Is", let alone understanding its source. There are things beneath philosophy.
Do you consider the verse is true necessarily? What if it's not even logical in itself?
Why? Well, a word said by a person being the totality of the person seems wronger.
>a word said by a person
I'm not sure when or why you coupled the concept of "The word" and "said by a person" together, but I think you'd be better served by separating them.
Right, but why would the Logos be God?
I don't say "the Logos"
Why?
It sounds dumb but it never struck me as right. Something about it always felt off to me. Like when you hear someone say 20 paragraphs worth of stuff about what could be brought up and concluded in 2 or 3.
>Do you consider the verse is true necessarily? What if it's not even logical in itself?
I consider the verse to be suggesting a fruitful attitude towards that which is prior to existence, and perhaps logic* as well, in the sense that treating it as "true" would be beneficial and orient you correctly in relation to that which is prior to existence, and perhaps logic*. Itcs not a syllogism, it's a vibe.
*Meaning here ideal perfect divine Logic (Logos, the Word), not the fallible and limited logic available to fallible and limited beings.
>in the sense that treating it as "true" would be beneficial and orient you correctly in relation to that which is prior to existence, and perhaps logic*
Why do you feel that?
>Why do you feel that?
Because the limits of language are the limits of my world, and the meaning of the world lies outside the world. The kinds of questions you are asking cannot be answered in the way you want, all we can do is hint and suggest and feel our way towards something much less than certainty. Forget about answers, the question is beyond us.
>Are you saying it's not understandable?
It depends what you mean by "understandable". "Word" in John is a translation of "Logos", which can mean a word but is probably better understood as "intelligible reason" or "pattern" or something like that - so God must be in some sense comprehensible, at least in parts, to a degree, and His comprehensibility is in some way an inherent part of Him. And we are made in His image, so there has to be some kind of analogous understanding.
On the other hand, how are we to understand the source from which understanding comes? Throughout the Bible, attempts to explain God's nature, or His actions, are dismissed, as He is completely transcendent, infinite qualitative difference, etc. We can see, but only dimly, and we can never fully comprehend the nature of God.
It means that one possible way of expressing the fundamentally inexpressible transcendent nature of God which precedes all understanding and existence itself is "the Word was with God, and the Word was God". You will never get an "answer", there's no answer and no question.
>which precedes all understanding and existence itself
I don't think God precedes all understanding and existence itself.
Well, that changes everything.
>was
That's past tense.
So?
But the problem
persists.
I see, but I was aiming at the Christian interpretation of it, because it seems strange.
>I see, but I was aiming at the Christian interpretation of it, because it seems strange.
I'm pretty sure that is the appropriate christian viewpoint. I don't think it's a latter fabrication or delusion or something hammered out by rational application of mind.
30 The Father and I are one.”
31 The israelites took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?” 33 The israelites answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human, are making yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[a] ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand[b] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
The word is God. God is not part of God. God is indivisible. "God is indivisible" means that god cannot be split into two or more parts.
In the beginning, when language defined the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and empty, lack of definition was over the surface of existance, and consciousness was hovering over the chaos. And a caveman said, “Light,” and there was light. An opinion saw that the light was good, and Jesus separated the light from the darkness.
In the beginning was language, and language was with the creator, and language was the creator. Jesus was with language in the beginning. Through language, all things were defined; without language, nothing was defined that has been made. In language was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Language shines on the undefined, and the undefined become defined.
God is just a category
God overflows categories and has absolutely sovereignty.
20Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22israelites demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to israelites and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both israelites and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
>blah blah blah peepee poopoo caca Ablrrrgghhhspffff!
Might as well be what you say when you start talking about things that transcend logic
>The word was with God and the word was God
It's a bit like saying God was everything, since nothing else existed. All of our potentials was God as well. That doesn't make us God today.
Seriously, why are you going out of your way to ask questions like this when you haven't even put in the most basic effort of reading the key new testament books?
I asking for help on this verse specifically.
To me calling Jesus the Son of God would not be very strange, because the Word of God seems to be a part of God. But calling him God and saying that the Word is God is what is strange to me.
I don't get your point
>the Word of God seems to be a part of God
Where did you hear 'part'?
Not technically "part" but a person of the Godhead.
But what is the solution to
?
Pros ton Theon - with/toward God;
I would say means the persons of God were together in communion before creation. Being the same (God) and yet separately sharing this sameness (being with/towards God) is something I would write if I were to narrate complete communion between something non-physical and ultimately ineffable. But this has not been revealed to me. It's just what I understand from theology and Church.
Wouldn't it be better to say that directly? Also, "persons" aren't even in the text. Isn't "God is with God" redundant?
A word said by a person is a part of the totality of the person, right? That's what I thought.
But is it really? I think it may be the only way of making John 1:1 work.
>A word said by a person is a part of the totality of the person, right? That's what I thought.
I don't think that's right.
>Wouldn't it be better to say that directly?
No.
>Also, "persons" aren't even in the text.
Neither are parts. "Persons" is a term used to defend against heresies.
>Isn't "God is with God" redundant?
Not if your point is to communicate persons of God being God.
The Word (Jesus) is God. Btw, partialism is heresy.
Well... When writing a computer application - it all starts with a blank page.
At some point - I need to enter my will into the application which take the form of various instructions. We keep this in human-readable form, but I know it's compiled down into binary.
Not saying that God's word is anything like this - but I always imagined that the word was Gods will brought into the world.
As far as the application / spirit is concerned. The word is God. It cannot see what inputs the instructions from beyond.
Again - as I'd imagine it...
>Not saying that God's word is anything like this - but I always imagined that the word was Gods will brought into the world.
Do you agree that God's will is something different than God itself by definition? A part of God, more specifically?
>As far as the application / spirit is concerned. The word is God. It cannot see what inputs the instructions from beyond. Again - as I'd imagine it...
But the code isn't the programmer, right? That's why I don't see why the Word would be God.
Do you agree that the "manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself" is not God itself, but a part of it?
>No.
Why?
>Neither are parts.
I thought that that word "of" would imply participation.
>"Persons" is a term used to defend against heresies.
But is not in the text just as "part" is not.
>Not if your point is to communicate persons of God being God.
Why would the Word of God be God?
So you prefer the word "Word"? The question still remains: why would the Word be God?
>The question still remains: why would the Word be God?
That doesn't show how the Word is God, and in fact shows the opposite. "The reflection of God's glory" is not God itself, and "the exact imprint of God's very being" is not God itself either. They're just related to God.
Good luck on your journey. If you continue seeking diligently and persistently, with rational application of mind and mindfulness unmuddled, you'll find what you seek.
>Do you agree that the "manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself" is not God itself, but a part of it?
I don't believe in the trinity at all. I believe in the traditional monotheist God of Judaism, but I believe Jesus is the begotten son of God. He is not God incarnate however. I think most trinitarians don't realize that the Logos is borrowed from the Memra.
> Do you agree that God's will is something different than God itself by definition? A part of God, more specifically?
I don't pretend to know God. He's beyond it...
> But the code isn't the programmer, right? That's why I don't see why the Word would be God.
I said - I believe the word is Gods will for the world. By providing instructions the will is carried out, by the world and the agents within. How do we communicate instructions? Through words. The word is God as far as the mechanisms/beings of the world are concerned.
(Again, what I think is likely to be the case in a constructed world)
> Do you agree that God's will is something different than God itself by definition? A part of God, more specifically?
I shudder to think...
But imagine a world where Gods will wasn't quite as .... good.
The Word (Logos) is the Memra: https://www.israeliencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra
>In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself
Why can't the holy spirit be something based like an eagle or a raven? Doves are cringe.
GOD THE FATHER: THE MIND.
GOD THE SON: THE WORD.
GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT: THE WILL.
The power of 3