What did John mean?

[marco]

John's famous opening: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God� has caused much controversy. Some have suggested God should not have a second capital. Given John was a human, writing for humans, perhaps we should not excavate his words for meanings accessible only to a few men and angels.


Let's go with the text, including capitals. We've already discussed the non-capital interpretation.

Does this opening inevitably lead to Christ's being God?
Can we make sense of Word that allows us to see Jesus as human messenger, without discrediting John's authority?

[showme]

God had no beginning.

No one said he had.

The "Word" is the Spirit of Revelation, which is the Spirit of God.

I am hoping the capitalisation doesn't mean we're referring to the notorious nonsense at the end of the New Testament.

The "Word" made flesh, is simply the manifestation of the Spirit of Revelation/Scripture. That "Word", had a beginning.

You've simply misread the text. It doesn't say: In the beginning of the Word. This doesn't auger well if we're going to attempt an interpretatio of Revelation.

The alpha of that "Word" would be manifestated in Adam.

Would it? There wouldn't be many around to see this manifestation, then.

The omega, will be manifestated in the "Word of God" per Revelation 19:13. At that time the lawless, the double minded and the hypocrites will be in for a surprize.

So will the thinkers if it turns out Revelation makes some sense.


I struggle to see how all this relates to John's opening passage.

Your "struggle" seems to be rooted within yourself. The "Word" had a beginning, before the "Word", you had no manifestation of the "Word". Your efforts at trying to be cute, seems to be straining your capabilities.

[marco]

The "Word" had a beginning, before the "Word", you had no manifestation of the "Word".

The passage does not state the word had a beginning; it says that in the beginning there was the word and that suggests that when Earth was put together, the word was already in existence. There's nothing cute about understanding the phraseology.


It looks as if God, in your theology, had a beginning. I've not come across that view.
Probably because it's wrong.