What was in the BEGINNING?

[Kutte]

What was in the Beginning?

Dr. FAUST attempts to translate the Bible into German.
It is written: "In the beginning was the WORD".
At this point I am already hesitating. Who can help me to continue?
It is impossible for me to give the WORD such a high priority, I need to translate it differently. If I am enlightened correctly by the spirit...
It is written: "In the beginning was the MIND."
Consider the first line well, that your pen does not act hastily!
Is it really the MIND which creates everything? It should read: "In the beginning was the POWER."
However, even while I am writing this, Something gives me a warning not to remain there.
I am being helped by the spirit!
Suddenly I am seeing the solution and writing confidently:
"In the beginning was the DEED."

Excerpt from the drama-poetry ‘FAUST’ by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, one of Germany’s most prominent poets. (1710-1782)

Fascinating stuff thought about during the 1800 century by Goethe. Is it worth your consideration?

 

[St_Worm2]

Is it worth your consideration?

Historically, sure. Theologically, of course not (his are but musings of the reprobate mind).

Happy 4th of July

--David
p.s. - here is an excerpt from his poem, Prometheus

“I know of no poorer thing under the sun, than you gods! And you would starve if children and beggars were not fools full of hope.” ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe​

 

[Steve Petersen]

What was in the Beginning?

Dr. FAUST attempts to translate the Bible into German.
It is written: "In the beginning was the WORD".
At this point I am already hesitating. Who can help me to continue?
It is impossible for me to give the WORD such a high priority, I need to translate it differently. If I am enlightened correctly by the spirit...
It is written: "In the beginning was the MIND."
Consider the first line well, that your pen does not act hastily!
Is it really the MIND which creates everything? It should read: "In the beginning was the POWER."
However, even while I am writing this, Something gives me a warning not to remain there.
I am being helped by the spirit!
Suddenly I am seeing the solution and writing confidently:
"In the beginning was the DEED."

Excerpt from the drama-poetry ‘FAUST’ by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, one of Germany’s most prominent poets. (1710-1782)

Fascinating stuff thought about during the 1800 century by Goethe. Is it worth your consideration?

Check out the Memra. It is a personification of God and may be the equivalent of the Logos.

"The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") "

MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Jamminontha1]

What was in the Beginning?

Dr. FAUST attempts to translate the Bible into German.
It is written: "In the beginning was the WORD".
At this point I am already hesitating. Who can help me to continue?
It is impossible for me to give the WORD such a high priority, I need to translate it differently. If I am enlightened correctly by the spirit...
It is written: "In the beginning was the MIND."
Consider the first line well, that your pen does not act hastily!
Is it really the MIND which creates everything? It should read: "In the beginning was the POWER."
However, even while I am writing this, Something gives me a warning not to remain there.
I am being helped by the spirit!
Suddenly I am seeing the solution and writing confidently:
"In the beginning was the DEED."

Excerpt from the drama-poetry ‘FAUST’ by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, one of Germany’s most prominent poets. (1710-1782)

Fascinating stuff thought about during the 1800 century by Goethe. Is it worth your consideration?

After watching this video, I decided to learn a bit of Hebrew. Mostly for fact-checking this video lol.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Of course not...

Jesus is called "the Word" because he was the sum of all promises made by God to man. He was the living embodiment of God's Word to us. Thus he is the Word.

 

[-V-]

What was in the Beginning?

In context, John says "the Word" is Jesus. So, Jesus was in the beginning. It's part of John's statement that Jesus is God.

Why is Jesus "the Word"? Someone's word is how they express themselves. God expressed Himself to us in two major ways - His written Word, and His living Word. The Bible is God's written Word. Jesus is the living Word. Jesus is the living expression of God in human form.

 

[Kutte]

In context, John says "the Word" is Jesus. So, Jesus was in the beginning. It's part of John's statement that Jesus is God.

Why is Jesus "the Word"? Someone's word is how they express themselves. God expressed Himself to us in two major ways - His written Word, and His living Word. The Bible is God's written Word. Jesus is the living Word. Jesus is the living expression of God in human form.

Hi -V-,

Haven't I seen you before? I agree that a word is an expression coming from a self-conscious being.
Therefore, a word as such is not a being but emanating from one in written or spoken form.

When the Gospel of John begins with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", then this is for me no proof that the word is a being (Jesus) but simply an expression coming from a being, in this case God.

For what it's worth: One of my updated Bibles does not claim in John 1:1-2 that the Word by itself is a being, or what many Christians believe, Jesus. It merely states that "there was Christ with God." Makes more sense, does it not?
My best

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Kutte,

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
​

If you'd prefer, I suppose you could also say:

1 In the beginning was the pre-incarnate Son of God, and the Son of God was with God, and the Son of God was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.​

God the Father is not the words He speaks, anymore than you and I are the words that we speak. His words, like our words, are things that we both "create", and God (be it the person of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit) is not a creature (rather, He is from everlasting .. e.g. Psalms 90:2).

As far as the Trinity making "sense", that was never the purpose of the church's doctrine. Rather, it was to define/circumscribe and safeguard what the Bible teaches us about this mystery, not explain it, because that is clearly beyond any of us. However, the fact that we (as finite creatures) are not capable of fully understanding the Divine (and in this particular case, the nature of the Godhead) does not also mean that it is not true

Hope that helps!

Yours and His,
David

 

[-V-]

When the Gospel of John begins with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", then this is for me no proof that the word is a being (Jesus) but simply an expression coming from a being, in this case God.

No reason to think the Word is Jesus? Really? Let's look at the text:

John 1:1-2 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."

Who is the "he" at the start of the second sentence? It refers to "the Word". Why is it not "it"? If we're just talking about some expression, just literal words God is speaking, that would be an "it", not a "he".

Go on to verse 14-15 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about Him"

So, this "Word" became flesh, lived with them, was "the only begotten of the Father" (see John 3:16), and John testified about Him.

How is this NOT Jesus??

For what it's worth: One of my updated Bibles does not claim in John 1:1-2 that the Word by itself is a being, or what many Christians believe, Jesus. It merely states that "there was Christ with God." Makes more sense, does it not?
My best

No, I don't see how that makes more sense whatsoever. I'm also curious to know what specific version of the Bible you're referencing.

 

[nChrist]

Jesus Christ is God - one with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[-V-]

Hi -V-,

I have provided a rational analysis why a 'word' by itself is not a person, including Jesus. But you are unwilling to accept the obvious.

You did?

Let's see, your "rational analysis" consists of:
1. Claiming there's no proof "the Word" refers to Jesus, and then ignoring the verses I laid out that clearly show John is saying "the Word" is Jesus.
2. Referenced some unknown "updated" Bible (I did ask what specific version you referred to, you haven't answered that yet).
3. Said that you don't accept that a word can become flesh (apparently your God is not omnipotent), claiming that a spoken word didn't magically become flesh (which no one said is what happened anyway).

Not much "rational analysis" present in your rational analysis.

The only way to make some sense out of this is to look at the issue metaphysical. That is to say, that a 'word' can influence someone to perform certain deeds, just as the renowned German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe some 200 years ago observed in his drama FAUST.

No, not the only way. How is it that the SIMPLE idea of "the Word" being a metaphor for Jesus is so hard to grasp? It's one of the simplest literary devices around, and it just goes right over your head.

Tell me this -A-: Why did God lower Himself to be baptized by John with water from the Jordan river?
My best

It marked the beginning of His ministry, it symbolizes, among other things, submission to God. Philippians 2 points out that Jesus "emptied" Himself of His divinity and became as a servant.

 

[Kutte]

Did you miss where I quoted it twice? I already have access to it. And, no, I don't particularly like it. It's a paraphrase, not a genuine translation. It's basically a dumbed-down version.


It *IS* a metaphor, I've already said that, just not the way YOU think it is. The only metaphorical part is "the Word". It is a metaphor for Jesus. The passage is saying, "Jesus was made flesh." As already pointed out, that is exactly what The Way says - "And Christ became a human being."


I've already said Jesus is God. He's part of the Trinity, one of the persons of the Godhead. One person of the Godhead (Jesus) came down, was baptized, and was subservient to another person of the Godhead (the Father).

Hi -V-,

When the authors of THE WAY decided to write “And Christ became a human being” instead of using the literal phrase “The Word was made flesh” they must have realized that a Word by itself does not become flesh. A smart move.

If Jesus is part of a god-head he must still be considered God. For God to come down to earth to be baptized is a rather strange event. It also doesn’t make sense for God to speak of a Father since he is already God. At best, Jesus can only be considered a manifestation of God, not God himself.

Be blessed

 

[-V-]

Hi -V-,

When the authors of THE WAY decided to write “And Christ became a human being” instead of using the literal phrase “The Word was made flesh” they must have realized that a Word by itself does not become flesh. A smart move.

How many times do we have to go over this?? NO ONE is saying a literal word became flesh. "The Word" is a metaphor for Jesus.

If Jesus is part of a god-head he must still be considered God. For God to come down to earth to be baptized is a rather strange event. It also doesn’t make sense for God to speak of a Father since he is already God. At best, Jesus can only be considered a manifestation of God, not God himself.

Be blessed

Jesus being God is NOT saying that Jesus is the Father. You are confusing the two.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Modalism suggests that Jesus was a manifestation of God, not God Himself.

 

[Kutte]

How many times do we have to go over this?? NO ONE is saying a literal word became flesh. "The Word" is a metaphor for Jesus.


Jesus being God is NOT saying that Jesus is the Father. You are confusing the two.

Hi -V-
Many Bibles are saying that the 'Word' became flesh. That the 'Word' is a metaphor for Jesus is your interpretation as well as mine.

Who is trying to confuse whom, -A-? Jesus being 'God' is NOT saying that Jesus is the Father? Are you implying that the Father is playing a subordinate role? Are we dealing with two Gods instead of only one? To clear things up once more God is the only superior entity ruling everything in the universe whereas Jesus is a manifestation of God like everything else, a creation.
May God's Blessings be your companion

 

[Kutte]

Modalism suggests that Jesus was a manifestation of God, not God Himself.

Well said Steve.

God bless

 

[-V-]

Hi -V-
Many Bibles are saying that the 'Word' became flesh.

Well what else would they say?? That's what the Greek manuscripts all say. The only differences are in "paraphrases" like The Way which take it a step further and simply say "Jesus" became flesh.

That the 'Word' is a metaphor for Jesus is your interpretation as well as mine.

You say that like everyone is just guessing, when the context gives no other option than "the Word" referring to Jesus.

Who is trying to confuse whom, -A-? Jesus being 'God' is NOT saying that Jesus is the Father? Are you implying that the Father is playing a subordinate role?

That doesn't follow at all. Simply saying the Son is a different person than the Father doesn't speak at all to either one being subordinate to the other.

However, the Son does in fact play a subordinate role to the Father. It's a difference in position, not in nature.

Are we dealing with two Gods instead of only one? To clear things up once more God is the only superior entity ruling everything in the universe whereas Jesus is a manifestation of God like everything else, a creation.
May God's Blessings be your companion

There is only one God, and there are three separate persons of that God. You may very well be confused by the Trinity. But why should an infinite God be expected to fit in little finite boxes in your mind?

 

[-V-]

Well said Steve.

God bless

It may be well said, but that doesn't change the fact that modalism or Jesus being nothing but a "manifestation" is clearly against what the Bible says.

 

[-V-]

My dear -V-,
While speaking of confusion you wrote: "There is only one God and there are three separate persons of God". My goodness gracious. It's like saying, there is only one Dollar bill and there are three separate Dollar bills of that Dollar bill.

No, it isn't. God isn't a monetary unit.

Writing, "why should an infinite God expect to fit in little finite boxes in your mind" seems an indication that you are not sure of yourself.

Lol, hardly.

God in His infinite wisdom appreciates those who attempt to use their minds and not blindly follow some religious doctrines.

Why am I "blindly following" it, other than because you say so?

Accepting Jesus as a manifestation of God makes his baptism plausible as well as many other statements in which Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God.
My best

... while also contradicting other Bible statements.

And you have yet to show how Jesus' baptism isn't "plausible" with the Trinity. And as soon as you realize that Bible writers often used "the Father" and "God" interchangeably, those "distinctions" with Jesus fit perfectly well with the Trinity.

 

[Tishri1]

Mod Hat:
Closed for review