Around this time of year many people reflect on the "true meaning of Christmas", but here's a great post by Donald Sensing on the true meaning of Jesus. It's somewhat in the context of Howard Dean's recent profession of faith, but Rev. Sensing addresses the larger questions I've asked in the past as they relate specifically to Jesus.
So the primary question in any rational inquiry about Jesus, from any angle, is not, "What did he teach?" because what he taught, while admirable, was unexceptional. The primary question is, "What did Jesus do?"There's no middle ground. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, there's no room for thinking that Jesus wasn't God, but was a "good teacher". A good teacher wouldn't be insane or falsely claim to be God.To that question there are only two possible answers:
- First, he preached self-exalting, babbling nonsense, hence he was a nut case whose inspiration of billions across two millennia makes no sense.
- Second, Jesus was raised from the dead by God, proving conclusively that not only are Jesus’ ethical teachings God-endorsed, but so are his self proclamations, including claiming equality with God. So maybe we’d better listen to him.
The situation is not clearly that clear cut. The Gospels were writen well after Jesus's ressurection, by people who probably hadn't ever met Jesus, much less remeber hearing him speak. (John is believed to have writen ~70 years after the resurection, generations were born into the church before his bible was writen)
We do not have any record of what Jesus said, we have a record of what others claimed Jesus said. And a lot of it relates to what was said in meeting with 12 people, none of whom were writing these documents, none of whom are ever claimed to be more than human, and none of whom were taking notes on what was going on.
What we have is better described as the result of an elaborate game of telephone, with each person wanting the message to same something specific. Now, multiple paths would make the message more reliable, and once things started getting writen down message drift would slow, and divine inspiration would not hurt either. However, there is still message drift from the Letters from Paul through the four gospels, and the writers were not divine, nor were they witnesses. They were men attempting to direct disputes within the church in the way they felt was right.
The result is a good set of teachings, by almost anyones standards; however, it is not necessary to impunge Jesus's motives to disbelieve sections of the gospel. It is merely necessary to accept that the gospel was writen by men who were relating what they had heard and what they believed to be true. Men who could have heard wrong, or been wrong.
Except of course even then it's all-or-nothing -- if you decide that some parts aren't to be believed, then how do you make the determination which parts to throw out? You're left imposing your own interpretation on everything, so why even bother? Why not just make up your own morality as you go along?
Plus, as far as the gospel authors go, Mark knew Jesus and so did John. Most scholars think Matthew was written by the apostle of the same name, although that's not entirely clear since much of Matthew closely follows Mark. Most people think Mark was writing with Peter, around 55-60 AD, and that Matthew was written sometime in the next few decades (55 - 60 AD is popular, and Matthew was probably written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD). Luke also probably worked from Mark and Matthew, and wrote Luke and Acts in the early 60s.
So, your generally assertions are all pretty much wrong, at least insofar as modern scholarship can determine. John was the latest-written gospel, by about four decades, and all the gospels were written by direct witnesses of Jesus, or first-hand accounts.
Aside from all that, it's a matter of faith, not proof. As Rev. Sensing said, belief in the teachings of Jesus is worthless without belief in Jesus himself.
as far as the gospel authors go, Mark knew Jesus and so did John.
It is not at all clear that the "authors" of Mark or John were actually the disciples that they are named for.
the gospels were written by direct witnesses of Jesus, or first-hand accounts.
Modern scholarship does not support that conclusion.
The best way to think of the Gospels is as the verbal folklore of widespread religious communities. The first three Gospels are quite similar, but don't agree 100 percent. Later-- in the third century-- the church leaders combined the verbal stories, wrote them down in the Bible and blessed them. Rather than saying that the version of one community was correct the church leaders included them all.
A similar episode occurred in the old testament where Judah and Israel were kingdoms at odds with each other for several centuries. They had separate priesthood's so each looked at common events with different viewpoints. When the kingdoms were finally combined, their verbal histories conflicted. Rather than choosing one; they combined them by alternating the paragraphs.
The concept of the Trinity came quite late-- after the Bible was formed-- fifth Century most likely, and was considered heresy as late as 55O AD, especially in the Eastern Roman Empire. There is no mention of the Trinity in the Bible, although, some people have reinterpreted the Bible to imply there was.
Jesus and his disciples would have rejected a Triune God. They were practicing Jews and thus, strictly monotheistic and would been horrified at the thought of Jesus being considered part of God. Jesus' divinity rose in different gentile communities after the Jews kicked the Christians out of the temple (50- 70 AD.) The kind of God Jesus was perceived as depended on the pagan religions and philosophies that the Christians locally competed against. Many concepts of Jesus' God hood (Arianism, Nestorism, Monophysitism) lost out to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Some of them still exist in isolated communities. The Copts of Egypt are Monophysites.
So far as we know, Jesus never made the claim that he was God. He got into enough trouble for saying that he would be at God's right hand-- the position of a ruler's greatest councilor.
What Jesus got crucified over was that he was saying that Judaism had lost touch with God. It had become overly ritualistic: a religious protection racket. If you broke any of its 613 laws, you owed a bribe to the priests. Jesus opposed the ritual. He said that the letter of the law killeth and the spirit of the law giveth life. He was constantly breaking the rules and getting away with it.
It feels as though Jesus were a reformer similar to Martin Luther. Both were bent on changing their church, not breaking members off into another cult. But, events didn't allow that. Both succeeded in reforming their prior religions, but not for centuries.
A process is at work here that seems chaotic, but is not. New ideas and associations resulted from the breakup, so good came from it. Judaism, with all its petty rules, could have never converted gentiles the way Christianity did. The Protestant Reformation, in way that Catholicism has not, lead indirectly to Science and Democracy.
I much prefer Jesus as the "Great Teacher." I even like the idea that God still sends teachers to humanity, great and small. And that we poor humans can choose to push aside the garbage and move closer to God. A person should be ready to be instructed, but it would be foolish to say that we know what God wants-- unless we are claiming to be prophets. Even then, we had better have some miracles up our sleeves.
PS. Howard Dean believes in Jesus, like I believe in Humpty Dumpty-- a childrens story.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. What makes you think a madman can't be correct?
LW: I'd have to write a book to argue all that with you -- suffice to say, I'm pretty sure you're wrong on all your major points. Among them, the dates of the writing of the various gospels, the early concept of the Trinity (Jesus clearly claimed to be God, for one thing), and so forth.
S3: The authors of the various gospels are as clear as is possible, considering their origin. Considering there are literally hundreds of sencond-generation manuscripts of all the NT books, and all the earliest are attributed to specific authors, there's really no reason to doubt the popular understanding. I've read an awful lot about NT history, and I can assure you that "modern scholarship" does support this position. Nothing like that can be absolutely known, but the indications are as good as it's possible to conceive of.
PJ: Maybe you've never spoken to someone who's insane. The whole meaning of "insanity" is that the person doesn't have a reasonable perspective on the world. If Jesus was insane, then he wasn't God as he claimed to be, and so he wasn't right.
Michael wrote:
S3: The authors of the various gospels are as clear as is possible, considering their origin. Considering there are literally hundreds of sencond-generation manuscripts of all the NT books, and all the earliest are attributed to specific authors, there's really no reason to doubt the popular understanding. I've read an awful lot about NT history, and I can assure you that "modern scholarship" does support this position. Nothing like that can be absolutely known, but the indications are as good as it's possible to conceive of.
I guess, then, that it depends on what scholarship you read because I have read plenty that refutes what you are saying. The key word in your statement is "attributed" which makes it fall into the category of legend or tradition. Modern scholarship basically says something along the lines of "Tradition holds that X wrote this gospel but there is no way to know because of....and....and... Therefore we cannot attribute it to X."
LW wrote:
So far as we know, Jesus never made the claim that he was God.
The Gospel of John claims that Jesus is God.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Subsequently the Johannine Gospel became the basis of orthodoxy in the church. The claim is that Jesus is God, the only human to ever have the light of God (divinity) and that, failing recognition of this fact, one is condemned already.
PS: Every date I have seen for John is 90-100 ce.
S3: Yes, John was the latest-written of the gospels.
As for the rest, there's more evidence for traditional gospel authorship than there is for any other ancient works, or for just about any other historical figures.
Michael,
The dates (approximately) I've heard verified by scholars are:
Acts of the apostiles = 1 to 20 AD
St. Paul's Letters = 15 to 23 AD
Matthew, Mark & Luke = 50 to 70 AD
John = around 100 AD
Latteran Council = 3rd Century (Constructed bible and threw away what wasn't official)
Revelations of John =+450AD
Dead Sea Scrolls = 150 AD
Jesus in the Gospels claims to be the "son of God" and "the son of man," but makes no claims of being God himself. He would have been killed earlier than he was if he had claimed to be God. His own disciples were strict Jews and would have killed him if he had said that. Others claimed his divinity centuries later, but not anyone who actually knew him.
St. Paul never claimed Jesus' divinity; he said that Jesus was the Messiah-- God's holy anointed one-- like David. St. Paul, when confronted by Jews denying Jesus' authority because he was not of the Priestly class, did not reply that Jesus was God. He said that Jesus' authority came, not from Moses, but from a different source. Jesus was a priest of Mechilsidek (sp? Sorry, I'm at work and have no Bible handy.) Priests are never Gods.
St. Paul could not have proclaimed Jesus' divinity and have that respected by the Jews. He was trying to remain a cult inside the Jewish religion at the time. But, you could see the breakup coming. The priesthood was uncomfortable about St. Paul converting Gentiles to the Christian cult and then not expecting them to follow the Jewish purity laws.
Early in St.Paul's letters he writes about going to Jerusalem to a meeting with the Church leaders. St. Paul won his position tentitively, but the fact that Christians were disobeying Jewish law finally Broke St. Paul's churches away from the Jewish Christian communities. The dead Sea Scrolls were from St Peter's Churches, but the Jewish Christians eventually died out.
S3
Whoever wrote the "Gospel according to John" was a real poet--a storyteller; we can tell from the phrasing that it was a single person. He took many of the previous stories and made them deeper, richer and beautiful. He left out some of the stories in the previous gospels that had conflicted with each other. You can get a hint of how much the Christian Church had changed in a mere hundred years; it was no longer a Jewish institution. It had refined itself and was moving in a different direction.
But, there are reasons to doubt your interpretation of that quote. The form that passage takes closely follows a prayer long known to the Jews. Their Phrase was "In the beginning was the law." Whoever wrote John cleverly copied the same form.
But notice, even this passage did not blatently say that Jesus was God, but that Jesus was the light of the world. And what is the light of the world? This is where it gets speculative: the Bible doesn't tell us. Or we choose not to see it when it does.
The problem is that we are seeing that passage with 21st Century eyes. We are reading our meanings into the quote. What if first century eyes saw it differently? Shouldn't we attempt to understand what the writers had meant?
We now know from archeology more about the First Century than we ever had before. And some of the interpretations of passages over the years do not fit first century thoughts.
The Catholic Church changed its positions often over time. It adopted its dogma from the revelations of saints and popes. After the Tenth Century the Church no longer used the Bible as a source document and increasingly punished groups that reinterpreted dogma using the Bible. Eventually, this and other problems in the Church lead to the Protestant Reformation.
The Protestants, to differentiate themselves from the Catholics, developed the concept of Biblical infallibility. Even the ancient Israelites didn't believe that. They believed that prophets and inspired teachers, through Midrash, tried to put down what God meant, but even Prophets, however honored, were imperfect.
I do not know the truth of these matters. I struggle to catch but a glimpse of it. I have no wish to impose my views on others, but some things make no sense. They contradict what Jesus would have said. I feel strongly that Jesus was here on earth to glorify God, not himself. I can see why others would want to glorify Jesus, but I wonder if he would want that.
LW: Uh, those dates are definitely wrong, considering that Paul couldn't have written his letters 15 years before Jesus even began his ministry.
Furthermore, read Philippians 2 if you don't think Paul preached Jesus' divinity. There are far too many other similar passages to even bother naming them all. Plus, the book of Hebews (of unknown authorship) makes very clear claims as to Jesus' divinity (and is the source for your "Priest of Melchizedek" phrase, which Jesus never used in the gospels).
Jesus did come to glorify the father. We pray to God the Father in the same was that he did, and you can raise theological issue about people praying to Jesus and whatnot. But Jesus did clearly accept worship from his disciples while on earth, so I don't really see it as a huge issue.
Yes, I meant the dates for the first three Gospels, St Paul's letters and Acts to mean after the resurrection. Sorry.
I'll get back to you on Phillippians 2 later tonight.
Michael, I have had mixed feelings in about this. Partly, because, although I like a rousing discussion. I am not into arguments now. And I know that people have very strong feelings about these issues. Also, because I don't think it is my calling to preach it. It has been just a series of ideas I've pondered to get myself into closer alignment with I think God wants. A way finding out what really happened.
The Various Christian faiths have been going through a rough time since the enlightenment and the rise of science, Nihilism and Socialism which attacked the dogmas and positions of Christianity. What I have been talking about could be considered just another attack, or it could be a way to clear up some of the mistakes of the past, and thus, bring people closer to God. I hope the latter.
Anthropology has uncovered much about how the Jews and Christians felt and thought in the First Century. The problem is that the lessons that Christ and St. Paul promoted are not what the later church authorities did. It became common to take a concept you wanted to promote and then look in the Bible for Phrases that could reasonably support that view. This lead to some strange beliefs and much unnecessary schism.
The "Historical method" tries to find out what Christ and his follower were concerned about. Often, this lead to a new understanding of previously confusing scripture. Take Romans 10, for example. What is that passage about? It turns out that St. Paul was talking about Jesus' primary theme. Was this the Catholic Church's theme after the second century? No.
These passages have mostly been ignored even though St Paul repeated them again and again in his letters to other churches. But, should they have been ignored? Shouldn't what Christ wanted to preach about take primacy over church dogma?
I am not zealous about this because I believe it will take about a century for the results of "Historical Method" to filter out to all the Christian faiths. The more hidebound the faith; the longer it will take. My arguing about it will not add one iota to the result, so I don 't talk about it much.
Michael,
your use of Phillippians 2:6 (?) smacks of a "proof text," that is, ripping out of context scripture that only has a surface appearance of defending your position. Let me quote it.
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who being in the very nature (or in the form of) God,
did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature (or form) of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Was it St. Paul's intent to proclaim Jesus was a part of a triune God in that passage? No, I don't think so. But, that is how some people later used it.
Look at the whole passage-- all of Phillippians 2. what is St. Paul trying to do? He is asking the persons to whom he is writing to consider Jesus and his humility.
When God sent Jesus to earth, he could have taken any form, even the highest of positions. But, Jesus did not take on the form of a Pharisee-- or a priest. He took on the form of a servant. Therefore, we who love God and Jesus should not exalt ourselves, but should think of ourselves as servants.
Jesus constantly spoke out against vanity through out the Gospels. "The first will be the last, and last first. Go into your closet to pray. Give to the poor in secret, and your father in heaven will reward in public."
Jesus said not to push your position on others-- not to exalt yourself. He said that at a party to sit with the lowly, so that your host would come up and ask "why are you sitting there" and would take you up to the head of the table.
St. Paul was paraphrasing that earlier passage and applying it to how God would treat Jesus. Jesus came to earth as the light of the world, but he took on the form of the lowliest of positions. He was faithful unto death and would be exalted by God in heaven.
But notice. What is the highest position in the Bible that God can exalt Jesus to? To become what is discribed in Mark 14:62-- God's right hand man.
Do you see how this contradicts viewing Jesus as God?
I think the key phrase here is "Who being in the very nature (or in the form of) God". There are other ways to translate it, but they all come down to the same thing: Jesus was God.
Even look at John 10:22-33, where the Jesus clearly says that he's God, and the Jews make no mistake about his claim.
I want to know the truth also, but the thing with Christianity is that God is revealed, not discovered. The biggest negative effect "science, Nihilism and Socialism" have had on Christianity is the rise of the so-called "historical method" you talk about. I'm a scientist, an engineer, and I've almost got my PhD in artificial intelligence, so don't think I'm denigrating science, but it's the wrong tool to use here. Science can discover facts, but it's locked into this natural world. God is, by his very nature, supernatural, and cannot be the object of scientific study.There's no theory, and no way to test any such theory. God cannot be disproved, and thus has no business being treated scientifically. Religion is not science, no matter how much you want to treat it as such.
Anyway, as we say, it's not about religion anyway, it's about a relationship with God.
"I think the key phrase here is "Who being in the very nature (or in the form of) God". There are other ways to translate it, but they all come down to the same thing: Jesus was God. "
No, Michael. What is God's nature? You assume that only Jesus can share that nature with God. But, we are all made in God's image. St. Paul was saying that Jesus was special, but that we should, however imperfectly, try to emulate that nature. Why is that so impossible?
But, no jew of the First Century, not Paul, Peter or even Jesus, could imagine Jesus as a God. That came only after the Jews left the Christian faith. The Christians in the second Century had previously had Pagan Gods that they cast Jesus in the light of: Dionysis, Isis and the Roman emperors. By the end of the second century Christians were killing christians over what kind of God Jesus was. Disgraceful.
Even look at John 10:22-33, where the Jesus clearly says that he's God, and the Jews make no mistake about his claim.
22Then came the Feast of Dedication[1] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[2] tell us plainly."
25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[3] ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
That passage said that God gave Jesus special powers; we all agree with that. You are interpretating the phrase "I and the father are one" to mean "I and the father are the same." I don't think it says that. It says that Jesus is doing God's bidding in this.
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus here says that the miracles are from the father, not from him. The Jewish leadership wanted to kill Jesus because he threatened them. He stirred up the common people. He said that the Pharisees and priests were wrong; that they were obeying the letter of the law, and not its spirit. Naturally, they claimed Jesus was blaspheming.
I still see no statement where Jesus or his followers say Jesus was God. I see people centuries later re-interpreting passages to force them to say so. But, if you look at the passages carefully and with an open mind; they mean something else.
"I want to know the truth also, but the thing with Christianity is that God is revealed, not discovered. "
Its both. Often, we discover that we have been in error-- that we have made mistakes. This does not reveal anything about God, but about man's sinful nature.
"The biggest negative effect "science, Nihilism and Socialism" have had on Christianity is the rise of the so-called "historical method" you talk about. "
This statement tells me that you don't know what the "Historical Method" of reading scripture is. There have been three methods: proof texts, the plain meaning and the historical method.
The first is when you go looking through the Bible for some sentence that you can take out of context to "prove" a religious position.
The second is to look for the plain meaning of the text. This is better than "proof text" because you are trying to find the meaning. But, problems arise in translation errors and the fact that you do not think like a first century Jew or Christian.
The third method is to study first century people and then try to find out what they would think the scripture meant. The latter case is difficult and until the 20th century we didn't know enough to be sure of how they thought.
"I'm a scientist, an engineer, and I've almost got my PhD in artificial intelligence, so don't think I'm denigrating science, but it's the wrong tool to use here. Science can discover facts, but it's locked into this natural world. "
Science has its limitations; I'll not dispute that.
"God is, by his very nature, supernatural, and cannot be the object of scientific study."
We are not trying to find out what God thinks here. We are trying to find out what Jesus and his followers meant. Science can help us here.
"There's no theory, and no way to test any such theory. God cannot be disproved, and thus has no business being treated scientifically. Religion is not science, no matter how much you want to treat it as such. "
I'm not trying to disprove God. What we are trying to do is to clear away the garbage-- to throw away the mistaken ideas-- to try to get back to what Jesus meant.
"Anyway, as we say, it's not about religion anyway, it's about a relationship with God."
Exactly. But, wouldn't it help not to be lead into errors that happened hundreds of years ago?
CS Lewis was trying to do this. But, he only went back to correct sixteenth century errors. There were errors before that. Shouldn't we try to correct those too?
Michael, I've ebjoyed talking about this with you. It's been quite a while since I thought about anything religious; what with the war and all.
Lately, I've been reading Paul Johnson's excellent tome "A history of the American People." Plus, spending three to four hours a day on the web. Plus, reading a few science fiction books a week. And thinking about how to convert a sweet, sad shortstory of mine into a "coming-of-age" action-comedy screenplay. So, my thoughts have been otherwise occupied.
It's been over three years since I thought about this topic. That is not unusual. I will often pick an interest and study the subject furiously, then put it away while my unconscious sorts it through, before picking it up again.
Michael, I don't think you will find any passages to support the idea that Jesus is God. I know I looked hard enough to find it and couldn't honestly say I could. I wasn't trying to do anything more than pursue the truth.
I have my preferances, but I have no axes to grind. If I hold a position; it's because it seems to make sense, and I have arguments to back it up. I must admit to not placing much reliance on tradition or religious hierarchies. I came to faith in my forties after spending a life as a skeptic. I'm not much into organized religion, and have no interest in letting anyone do my thinking for me. So, I study and think.
It may be a flaw in my character, but I want things to make sense. I take God on faith and little else. When I read the Bible I am looking for inspiration. I often ask God to lead me to something interesting, so I wind up studying rather odd things. Often, not religious things either.
As I stated earlier, I don't know the truth. I just want to be open to it when it presents itself.
LW: I think you're missing the forest because of all the trees you're busy examining. I think the passages I referred to (as well as others) very clearly show Jesus claiming to be God, and it's clear that the Jews of his time understood his claims. Had he not been God, he would have been guilty of the blasphemy he was constantly accused of. I'm glad for your comments and perspective, but you'll never convince me, because it's all quite clear from where I'm sitting.
Of course, Michael, believe what you want to believe. As I said, it is not my calling to preach this. This idea will percolate through the faiths, if it is God's will.
But, you paint an either/ or situation here: either Jesus is God or he is blaspheming. I suggested that neither is true, but that an error has been made. People of good will and faith believed each position out of misunderstanding. Each read into scripture what wasn't there. They lost touch with God, and God will eventually get around to correcting this error.
The only thing lost in interpreting Jesus as God is that you lose Jesus' humanity. If he is God then he has nothing to fear or sacrifice; his coming to earth becomes just a ritual. The 40 days and nights in the desert were not him wrestling with his fear-- his mortality. Jesus was smart; he knew his path would lead an early grave. If he were a man, he knew what he was giving up. If he were a God he gave up nothing. And feared nothing.
As I leave this topic let me suggest one more passage. Often, people have "mental reservations" when they read scripture. They know the dogma; they know how their church looks at things. But, they often don't recognize that they are reading more into a passage than is there.
One method to avoid this is to look for the intent of the writer; was he really trying to say what you want him to say? Are you taking him out of context? Are you "Dowdifying" him.
Another is to look for words that have double (or special) definitions. You can easily swap between two, often contradictory, definitions without noticing. If you find you are using a special word, it is useful to substitute a synonym to see if it changes the meaning of the passage.
The special word in the following passage is "word." A commonly used synonym in the first century was message. We still use it the same way, "General, we have just heard word from the front!" Let's see if inserting it changes the meaning.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Message, and the Message was with God, and the Message was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
1:14 The Message became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only, who came from the father, full of grace and truth.
Michael, The message became a messenger. It requires doublethink (fanaticism) to believe otherwise.
I have no desire to take anything away from Jesus. But, I read him as a humble person; He came to earth as a servant. He came to do God's will. I can't see that he would want to be placed on a pedestal.
LW: "The only thing lost in interpreting Jesus as God is that you lose Jesus' humanity. If he is God then he has nothing to fear or sacrifice; his coming to earth becomes just a ritual. The 40 days and nights in the desert were not him wrestling with his fear-- his mortality. Jesus was smart; he knew his path would lead an early grave. If he were a man, he knew what he was giving up. If he were a God he gave up nothing. And feared nothing."
That's not the general foundational understanding of the Incarnation, but I expect you're aware of that. Jesus was both God and man, and struggled with all the same problems we face: pain, loneliness, fear, and so forth. How could this happen if he was also God? That's one of the mysteries of the faith that can't be explained reasonably, along with many other things. You want to have a belief system that can be easily fit into a rational box, and so you're eager to throw away anything that doesn't conform.
As for the rest, you reach my conclusion very precisely and then discard it. "The message became a messenger" is exactly right. Jesus himself is the message, and always has been. The Greeks used the work logos in a lot of ways, but the primary spiritual useage was logos as the motivating idea behind all creation. By using this term, John was adapting the essence of Christianity to terms familiar to his Greek readers. And so forth.
Read the way NT writers refer to Jesus: it's clearly worshipful, and places him equal to God the Father.
If you want try to fit God into a box limited by your own understanding, you're going to miss everything important.