John 1 in the New Testament
crunch
wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:48:04 -0800 (PST), jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com
> > wrote:
>
> >> they hate the biblical teaching of the
> >> Trinity.
>
> > The trinity does not come out of the bible.
>
> The word 'Trinity' doesn't, but what about John 1?
>
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> God [...] and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us".
>
> Tim.
Strictly to answer your question, Tim, I give a
VERY DIFFICULT Thiering explanation here. Do
read her entire article and then ask me any questions
for clarification -
Meaning of 'the Word of God'
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2852
"Brad asks about the pesher of Jn 1:1 "in the beginning was the Word…
and the Word was God." I did show, in The Book that Jesus Wrote, that
the sentence is a masterpiece, combining philosophy with history in a
way that gives equal validity to both. For the Greek readers who were
more interested in abstract philosophical questions than in the
historical origins of their new religion, the sentence affirmed that
the immanent divine Reason (defined in the quote Rowan has given) was
incarnated in the person of Jesus. He was the instrument of divinity,
the expression of God in the workings of this world. He was there ‘in
the beginning’, at the time of creation, the Beginning of Gen 1:1.
For those expecting also historical facts, there is more to be
learned
about Jesus himself. It is this sentence that supplies the pesher of
the term ‘Word of God’. When the term appears elsewhere it is giving
information about the actions of Jesus, for whom ‘Word of God’ was,
at
times, a title. Very important events are referred to by this means,
for example in Acts 6:7; 12:24; 2 Tim 2:9. These readers expected
technical terms within religious terms, and looked closely at every
detail, such as the presence or absence of the definite article (in
the reliable Greek text). ‘God’ with the definite article meant also
the Sadducee high priest, who was believed to incarnate God in
heaven.
I’ve given several times the evidence for this, in Philo’s definition
of the high priest (On Dreams 2:188-189). Without the definite
article, the word means ‘a priest’, in the sense given in the Sabbath
Sacrifice documents, a graduate who in the Diaspora acted as a
priest,
a member of a symbolic Holy of Holies."
-----
David Christainsen
(<<Kelly>>)
Dear Soggy Village Idiot,
Do some work on your own and stop plagiarizing other people's work.
Give your own synopsis, not someone else's. Your cut-and-paste jobs
are bunk from bunky. Further, no one wants to talk Thiering as you
have been presenting it for years, but if you do some work on your
own, and present your own ideas, they might consider it.
Sincerely tired of your hobbyhorses,
Your conscience
Sir David
hobbyhorse thusly:
> Strictly to answer your question,
You mean, strictly to exercise your hobbyhorse obsession.
> I give a VERY DIFFICULT Thiering explanation here. <flush>
No you don't. You just ride your hobbyhorse. You must be so proud that
it's a CAPITALIZED VERY DIFFICULT HOBBYHORSE. You should put that in
your sig, so all the world will know how very CAPITALIZED KOOKY you
are, and alll the world will laugh at you.
> Do read her entire article
Do stop telling people what to read, especially when it's tedious
kooky claptrap. Nobody's interested in Babs's bullshit. Haven't you
been paying attention.
> and then ask me any questions for clarification -
... and you'll refuse to answer them, but rather you'll post a bunch
of crunchylinks and paste a bunch of crunchyquotes and innoculate many
more killfiles with the crunchyworm crunchware. That's why you're
Carl, the Crunchback of Neutered Brain. Sucks to be you.