by ajie 221 Replies latest watchtower bible
Joseph...go back to John 1
John's opening echoes Genesis (Gen 1:1), but whereas Genesis refers to the God's activity at the beginning of creation, here we learn of jesus who existed before creation took place. In the beginning the Word already was. So we actually start before the beginning, outside of time and space in eternity. Why are you so stuck on 'heavens' being earthly governments?
Gumby
John's opening echoes Genesis (Gen 1:1), but whereas Genesis refers to the God's activity at the beginning of creation, here we learn of jesus who existed before creation took place. In the beginning the Word already was. So we actually start before the beginning, outside of time and space in eternity.
Gumby,
Wrong again Gumby. John was discussing the beginning of the creation of the human race (the world) when he introduced the Word. He did not go back in time to the place you say. Show me where he was talking about planets, stars and such things outside of time and space in eternity and you may have a point but you cannot do that because your assumption is wrong. You talk about deity like you know what it means but cannot explain it scripturally. Yet you accuse me of taking texts out of context and being dub influenced, what a joke.
Joseph
Dub dub dub dub dub dub dub a thousand times a dub!!!!!!!
Gumby
Leolaia wrote: Hellrider....John Day has noted that Deutero-Isaiah is engaged in a polemic against the view of God in Genesis 1.
JosephMalik wrote: Leolaia, This much is true and supported scripturally
I have no problem in agreeing on this. I know very well that "God" in Genesis is plural, that there is a development from polytheism in the beginning of the OT, to monotheism later in the OT. However, the point is, that this doesn`t help one bit, when trying to look at the trinitarianism vs non-trinitarianism-problem from a christian viewpoint! This only helps in understanding the underlying process of the development of the Bible, from a historical perspective. The view of the "old-school" christian, the JW, or the ex-JW who still believes a lot of their doctrines are correct (Joseph...), this knowledge doesn`t solve the theological problem. The christian is obliged to read the Bible as Gods inspired words, you can`t, as a christian say, "well, Moses is just plain wrong here" (yeah yeah, I know Moses didn`t write the Torah). If Genesis says "gods", Isiah says "God" and John says "the Word", then this has theological consequenses, whether you like it or not, and whether you can "explain away" the disreprancies with historical/secular knowledge. The final "truth", as a christian, has to be an explanation which incorporates all these (three) views, an explanation that doesn`t exclude one or the other on basis of historical knowledge, because that would be like saying that one (or more) part(s) of the Bible was uninspired.
Joseph:
John was discussing the beginning of the creation of the human race (the world) when he introduced the Word.
Why? Why does "all things" only mean the human race? Where is that in the text?
Show me where he was talking about planets, stars and such things outside of time and space in eternityShow me that he did NOT.
DD:
Don't worry, I get it!
Thanks ozzie
Didier:
No, I got your point, but you might be thinking that I'm taking this down a route that I'm not; I'm asking if the Father and the Son are treated the same way, in connection with this word, regardless of what connotations the word imples.
DD:
Either or either. I can agree with both of those positions, as they aren't mutually exclusive
Joseph:
Wrong again Gumby. John was discussing the beginning of the creation of the human race (the world) when he introduced the Word.
That would be your interpretation, but it's not substantiated in that scripture. Quite the contrary, since he begins the whole gospel with a dialog about the word, he obviously isn't "discussing" anything prior to this point in the dialog at all!
Why does "all things" only mean the human race? Where is that in the text? Hellrider, 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Who knew him not? The planet? The trees? The animals? The people? Yes, the very ones that were made by him? What do you have to show? Nothing! That is all that you have offered so far. Joseph
Wrong again Gumby. John was discussing the beginning of the creation of the human race (the world)
Gumby
And verse 11? "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."
Is this a further genus, or is this also in reference to "the world"?
Is this a distinctly separate group, and if so is it the human race or specifically the Jewish race?
And if there are such distinctions made, why is it not possible that within the whole of creation he is now concentrating on humankind, or are you saying that he came only for the Jews? Were "his own" the Jews or the Humans?
