Why Do You Believe Jesus is God?

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It went from being an accurate translation to being added so quickly?

Yes the prologue to the chapter is an adder.

So what is the source? Who wrote it? What is the meaning? There are many interpretations, so from the source, what are the possible meanings?

Koine Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[3]
Greek transliteration En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.

Greek to English In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word.

-------alternate Greek (beginning: original, foundation, source, principle) (Word: reason, saying) (with: toward, facing)

Syriac Peshitta ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀
Syriac transliteration brīšīṯ ʾiṯawhi milṯā, whu milṯā ʾiṯauhi hwā luaṯ ʾalāhā; wʾalāhā iṯauhi hwā hu milṯā
Sahidic Coptic ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
Coptic transliteration Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[3]
Latin Vulgate In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

Latin to English In beginning was Word and Word was beside (alongside) God and God was Word.
-------alternate Latin (beside: by, alongside, near, next to)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Yes the prologue to the chapter is an adder.

So what is the source? Who wrote it? What is the meaning? There are many interpretations, so from the source, what are the possible meanings?

Koine Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος.[3]
Greek transliteration En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.

Greek to English In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word.

-------alternate Greek (beginning: original, foundation, source, principle) (Word: reason, saying) (with: toward, facing)

Syriac Peshitta ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀
Syriac transliteration brīšīṯ ʾiṯawhi milṯā, whu milṯā ʾiṯauhi hwā luaṯ ʾalāhā; wʾalāhā iṯauhi hwā hu milṯā
Sahidic Coptic ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
Coptic transliteration Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[3]
Latin Vulgate In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

Latin to English In beginning was Word and Word was beside (alongside) God and God was Word.
-------alternate Latin (beside: by, alongside, near, next to)

Pleas substantiate it being "added"

John is the source

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Pleas substantiate it being "added"

John is the source

Before I do - provide any evidence of an original early source of the entire gospel WITH the prologue

You say John is the source. Even your most diligent scholars question this and there are any number of guesses for the author.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Before I do - provide any evidence of an original early source of the entire gospel WITH the prologue

You say John is the source. Even your most diligent scholars question this and there are any number of guesses for the author.

scholars question everything, that is why they are scholars.

[shazeep]

hmm, lawyers do that, too...

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

scholars question everything, that is why they are scholars.

<grin> As the author is indicated as the "follower Jesus loved" AND the only male figure in the entire book who was specifically noted as the one Jesus loved was Lazarus (not John oops) it has been proposed by as least some scholars that this was the author.

No scholar (outside of Prax) 'declares' John as the author.

Prax well knows that there is no "original" gospel of John and certainly not a version WITH the prologue, which was actually an old hymn according to some which was attached to the gospel.

Hence the silence.

But we will see. Perhaps the requested information will turn up.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by shazeep

hmm, lawyers do that, too...

True

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

<grin> As the author is indicated as the "follower Jesus loved" AND the only male figure in the entire book who was specifically noted as the one Jesus loved was Lazarus (not John oops) it has been proposed by as least some scholars that this was the author.

No scholar (outside of Prax) 'declares' John as the author.

Prax well knows that there is no "original" gospel of John and certainly not a version WITH the prologue, which was actually an old hymn according to some which was attached to the gospel.

Hence the silence.

But we will see. Perhaps the requested information will turn up.

Theories and speculation. is that all you got?
scholar theories are a dime a dozen.
pretty flimsy if you ask me.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Theories and speculation. is that all you got?
scholar theories are a dime a dozen.
pretty flimsy if you ask me.

No. Actually the reverse is true. Theories and speculation is actually all you 'got'. Which is why, under scrutiny, your message is flimsy.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Before I do - provide any evidence of an original early source of the entire gospel WITH the prologue

You say John is the source. Even your most diligent scholars question this and there are any number of guesses for the author.

Original? Provide for me the original Quran. That's an absurd request. The gospel was written in the first century and from there copied over and over. Demanding I provide the original is just an absurd way of getting out of answering the question

This is from my notes for a NT survey

A. Who Wrote John?
1. Church tradition since the 2nd century names John, son of Zebedee and brother of James as the author.
2. It’s believed John is the one referred to as “beloved” (13:23; 18:15, 16; 19:26, 27).
3. The author is an eye witness, Jn 19:35
4. Internal Evidence
a. the author knew Jewish teachings and rituals and shared their OT world view[1]
b.the author knew Palestine and Jerusalem in their pre-a.d. 70 condition [2]
c. the author claims to be an eyewitness ( 1:14 , 19:35, 21:24)
d.the author was a member of the apostolic group, for he is familiar with[3]
1) details of time and place (the night trials)
2) details of numbers (water pots of 2:6 and fish of 21:11) [4]
3) details of persons
4) details of events and the reaction to them
5) the author seems to be designated as “the beloved disciple”[5]
e.the author seems to be a member of the inner circle along with Peter [6]
1) Jn 13:24, 20:2, 21:7
f. the name John, son of Zebedee, never appears in this Gospel, which seems highly unusual because he was a member of the Apostolic inner circle[7]
5. External Evidence, attributed to John
a. Irenaeus (a.d. 120–202) “John the disciple of the Lord who reclined on His breast and himself issued the Gospel at Ephesus in Asia” [8]
b.Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 153–217) — “John who was urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel”[9]
c. Justin Martyr (a.d. 110–165)
d.Tertullian (a.d. 145–220)
e.Polycarp (a.d. 70–156
f. Papias (a.d. 70–146

[1] Utley, R. J. (2000). New Testament Survey: Matthew–Revelation (27). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.


Lastly, each gospel began "The gospel of" and in this case "the gospel of John"

So your evidence Jn 1:1 was added?