Biblical Scholar Explains John 1:1

Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos):

#science

[epektasis_shunyata]

This clickbaity title has to go. Ive been following DBH for 7 years now and read nearly everything he has ever written. He does NOT believe Jesus is just a mortal man or a god among Gods. He believes He is the second person of the Trinity. He was just pointing out that there was a reason for christological debates in the past, not that he believes Christ isnt God.

[Aaron-SLC]

This is misleading. clickbait for views. David is talking about John 1:1. David believes in the trinity.

[voltairedentotalenkrieg]

Sometimes i look at John1:1 as
"In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with The Divine, and the Logos was divine."

[BenjaminYWarner]

This was an interesting discussion. Thank you.

[thormusique]

Wow, I love this! Thanks so much for this excellent discussion. I'll definitely watch the full episode. Cheers!

[travisa]

I hate sensationalist titles like this. Hart doesn't assert that Jesus is not God; he simply says that the New Testament gives a mixed and ambiguous picture of his identity, in which he typically occupies a high, mediating position on a single continuum between the lowest realm of matter and the highest realm of pure spirit which is itself "God Most High." He points out in this video that John's Gospel could very well be identifying Jesus with God (ho theos), and elsewhere he defends the Nicene synthesis (while admitting it to be a more conceptually novel formula than that of Arius) precisely on the grounds that Christianity conceives of salvation as union with God, and ultimately only God can unite us with God.

[thambone]

John 1:1 (Literal Idiomatic Translation)

1:1a In (en) [a] beginning (archē) there was

1:1b

(In Prov. 8:30a (LIT/BHS) the Word states about himself,  "I was becoming one being brought up alongside." See Prov. 8:22-31)

1:1c and (kai) [a] god (theos) was

(The nominative case words which are the subject of the verse are in green. Please note that “God” in 1:1b and “a god” in 1:1c are not identical in case. Theon in 1:1b is not in the nominative case,  the case of the subject, and therefore cannot be the subject. Therefore “God” and “a god” cannot be referencing the one and the same entity.)

[sorinalexandruhorlea]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20).

[kimberlyanndeangelo]

Experience dissolves philosophy...one true encounter with the Living Presence, Christ, standing in front of you and gazing into your eyes, Christ bringing you to see the crucifixion through the eyes of Jesus...and you sit your mind down in utter silence where all questions cease, for no more answers are needed. The Love is ineffible and all else becomes "straw".

[newtonfinn]

Millions upon millions of devout Christians over two millennia, , billions of them today, have had, now have, various and varying ways of understanding how the Son is related to the Father. Indeed, I submit that each and every Christian has their own unique and personal take on this, must have such an individualized take in order to make Jesus their personal lord and savior. What unites Christians is that they see God, relate to God, through Jesus, NOT that they understand this the same way.

[barbaradetmer]

I was raised Catholic and was always taught that Jesus is part of the holy trinity. Fail to see what the controversy is.

[CMA]

Do you mean this verse?

“I saw one like a human being
coming with the clouds of heaven.”

[maranatha]

Irrelevant, the immediate context of John 1 leaves no room for Jesus not being God when it tells us the entire creation was through him, excluding him from creation. Which is a work that can only be attributed to God YHWH from the Old Testament, the Psalms also tell us that no works can be compared to that of YHWH, and that no Son of god is like YHWH, yet Jesus does and says all things that only YHWH can say and do. This can also be derived from all the Gospels

[heitorchierentin]

The philosophical essay Reality in Existence, in Portuguese, referes to Logos as an "existencial mediator" beween the God All-Mighty uncreated and all his creatures.

[Michael-hlgx]

Kurt thank you for your integrity.
suggestion of the unquestionable?
I became uniquely interested.

[sjyavo]

To assert that the early Church did not understand Jesus as being God are applying "new" ideas to what was understood at the time. This is obvious when the Pharisees asked Him who He was and immediately attempted to stone Him. If He and the Father are one, this meant Jesus was claiming to literally be God. It was well understood, not just in the grammar of the Greek language, but also in the narrative itself.

What got confusing later was that people thought they were "smarter" than their predecessors, and what was taken as a given now needed a firm definition because a few influential idiots lost the plot.

[Jaeyaar]

Arbitrary interpretations of loose translations need to be prefaced with the fact that they are arbitrary interpretations of loose translations. We all need to reevaluate where we derive our value and self-worth, and how we express that to others. People are easily misled by a confident tone and may confuse opinion for fact due to it. These comments are wild.

[apreviousseagle]

I'm agnostic, but I also speak Greek, and I don't think that verse is separating into two beings. Pros ton Theon "seems" to be in plural because of the grammar needed, while "Kai o Theos" is singular. It sounds like "O logos en pros to Theon" (the expressive force was connected to God) used "Theon" due to the grammar of having two nouns "Logos" and "Theon" together, were "Logos" is singular because it's the focus, and it's prepositioning the next noun "Theon", which now has to be modified to account for being the 2nd noun. The next sentence "O Theos" now goes back to singular because it's a new sentence, and it's directly propositioning that "Theos" and "Logos" are the exact same thing, hence "O Logos" stays singular as well.

[mmongiello]

So the best place to get the definition of logos is from later Cristian writings? Why not use the definition from earlier greek. Where it does not mean god. It means the way of things. Why do these Bible people always do back flips to justify the Hebrew and Aramaic versions of this story?

[Tubemanjac]

On the youngest day all debates will fall silent and be obsolete.