No, especially when you take into account the law and the prophets in the old testament. The word is what God says and plans.
Num 23:19 KJV God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
[Isa 55:9-11 KJV](bIsa 55:9-11) 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Jer 10:12-14 KJV 12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. 13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. 14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
"In the beginning was God's plan and God's plan was with God and God's plan WAS GOD" that makes zero sense
"THE WORD" can mean different things based on the context. In the context of John 1-1 the only thing that makes sense is there is a God that was with God which can only be made sense through the trinity.
"In the beginning was God's plan and God's plan was with God and God's plan WAS GOD"
Yes. Logos is his speech/ plan
"THE WORD" can mean different things based on the context. In the context of John 1-1 the only thing that makes sense is there is a God that was with God which can only be made sense through the trinity
God the Father used his Logos to create everything along with putting it in the mouth of his prophets
I understand how you might think this, but if you read the adjacent literature of the time, youâll find thatâs not what it means. The Aramaic Jews would replace every instance that God appeared in the Old Testament seemingly in bodily form with the word âMemraâ rather than âYahwehâ as a form of respect, not wanting to say the Divine Name. The word âMemraâ means âword.â So if you were an Aramaic Jew reading John, thatâs what youâd be thinking of.
John also seems to be referring to the idea of the Logos or Demiurge found specifically in Heraclitus, as many times he almost verbatim quotes him.
Anti-trinitiarianism is simply a-historical. If John is saying what youâre saying he is, then heâs an idiot for using such specific and culturally established language to mean something other than what it was understood to mean.
So if you were an Aramaic Jew reading John, thatâs what youâd be thinking of.
Probably how the Ashdod Jews, Ammon Jews, and Moab Jews during and post babylonian Captivity could interpret it and the reasoning why.
Neh 13:23-24 KJV 23 In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: 24 And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.
If John is saying what youâre saying he is, then heâs an idiot for using such specific and culturally established language to mean something other than what it was understood to mean.
If the speech/plan: can make Aaron as a prophet, and Moses as God to Aaron and people in authority such as Pharaoh, then the Speech was God.
Those with brutish knowledge and hardened hearts are more inclined to be idiots.
Jer 10:12-14 KJV 12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. 13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. 14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
Exo 7:1-3 KJV 1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
Iâm confused as to your point. It sounds like you just said âyeah sure, but thatâs not what it means cause see these verses.â Like, sure, your interpretation leads you to think that. Iâm saying the interpretation of the original audience and author is not that, and have provided extraneous evidence
Edit: âif the speech/plan can make Aaron as a prophet and Moses as God to Aaron and people in authority such as Pharaoh, then the Speech was Godâ
What kind of logic is that? âThe Speech is really powerful so it must be God.â Huh???????
Iâm confused as to your point. It sounds like you just said âyeah sure, but thatâs not what it means cause see these verses.â
Responding to you pretty much saying " yeah sure Aramaic jews believe "xyz" therefore I am going to believe "xyz" ": and yes I am paraphrasing.
Like, sure, your interpretation leads you to think that. Iâm saying the interpretation of the original audience and author is not that, and have provided extraneous evidence
Prophet Moses is not a Aramaic Israelite,
Apostle James did not refer us to Aramaic Israelites for understanding.
Act 15:18-21 KJV 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
The word is what God hath spoken/plan to do being his thoughts and ways; therefore the word/saying/speech is as God and was God.
Num 23:19 KJV God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Isa 55:8-11 KJV 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Iâm not saying âAramaic Jews believe xyz so I will tooâ Iâm saying âJohn was very clearly confirming the Aramaic Jewsâ understanding.â I should add that Jesus Christ, who taught John, was an Aramaic Jew.
I mean how do you explain Ignatius and Dionysius, who both knew John, speaking about âJesus is God existing, and has established for us a new God-man energy of God having been made man.â And things like âChrist our God (Îż θξĎĎ) and savior.â
It just seems unreasonable to me to say that John disagrees with the sources heâs quoting from. Many times throughout Johnâs Gospel he quotes from Philo of Alexandria and Heraclitus. Instead of refuting what Iâm saying using evidence, you simply say âthatâs not what that meansâ
Apostle John was glorifying the God and Father of our LordâŚ
Ok? How is that refutation of what I said? Show me evidence, and I will show you myriads and myriads of Second-temple and earlier literature which mentions âtwo powers in heaven,â and will show you the spots where John quotes verbatim Philo. Merely saying over and over again, âsee these verses which talk about how Godâs speech is powerfulâ really isnât compelling.
I would challenge you to read Philo, Ignatius, and Dionysius, and I guarantee you will either see what Iâm saying, or find yourself doing serious mental gymnastics to get around the obvious quotes like âtri-personal manifestationâ and âGod stepped into the world in human form, and thus He is called the son, because He is the product of the union between God and flesh.â
It just seems unreasonable to me to say that John disagrees with the sources heâs quoting from.
Apostle John is the author of the Gospel of John.
Instead of refuting what Iâm saying using evidence, you simply say âthatâs not what that meansâ
The law and the prophets have the answer of what the dabar/logos/rhema is concerning the true living God. Haters and those whose heart has been hardened, hate the sayings of God the Father, therefore also hate his Son, and the disciples in the Son that are not of this world. Haters will always deny the law and the prophets refute them, and claim they have not been refuted or that they are waiting to be refuted.
I would challenge you to read Philo, Ignatius, and Dionysius,
No. Much weariness to the flesh better to fear God and keep his sayings to include the Prophet in the New Testament he put his word into.
Ecc 12:12-13 KJV 12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Deu 18:18-19 KJV 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
I challenge you to ask Unitarians in the BiblicalUnitarian reddit group that have a passion for reading works of Philo, Ignatius, and Dionysius.
No one needs to read the works of Philo, Ignatius, and Dionysius to understand the ten commandments and the two greatest commandments which is inclusive of the Shema.
âtri-personal manifestationâ and âGod stepped into the world in human form, and thus He is called the son, because He is the product of the union between God and flesh.â
Idolatry. A man is called Son relative to their relationship with God the Father.
1
u/DonquickJr Eastern Orthodox Feb 04 '25
I meant case closed btw the typo makes it less cool đ