>Where does it say Jesus is the Word? Are you just assuming
>that, or is there some other reference to him as such?

Response: Well it should be noted that John 1:1 should be read all the way through verse 18. This is what is called a *book end* Meaning that a statement is made in the beginning and some more points are made in the middle and then the last verse repeats the theme of the first.

The reason why we know the Word is Christ is because of the way the Word is described within this bookend. First of all he is called the *light* (which is a common theme in this gospel)

John 1:4
In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Jesus himself later on calls himself the light of the world in John's gospel. (John 8:12). And the word is also called the true light in verse 9.

Secondly in verse 7, John was suppose to be a witness to the light.

John 1:7
He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

And we know from the narrative that John was a witness for Christ and no one else.

In verse 11 says ...

John 1:11
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

We know the story of how Israel rejected him etc.

Finally the Word became flesh for our sakes, but also the word has to the only begotten of the Father...

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So this word became flesh and dwelt among us and was God's only begotten. Well there is only one person who fits that criteria, that is Jesus.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.


>And your distiction of the Trinity as one being with 3
>distinct persons being different from the other "pagan"
>trinities... well, in Hinduism, doesn't within the one
>being/essence/substance that is Brahman, there exist three
>co-eternal persons, namely, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva? I
>realize there are differences, but the being vs. person
>thing seems to work just as well for the Hindu Trimurti as
>it does the Christian Trinity.

Response: Shiva that is it, I forgot the name of the other god. But back to the point, no I don't think the word person would fit in their system at all. Because Brahman would not be considered a personal god. Here is a qoute I found...

BUT: Brahman is not a being in the sense that Christians think of God as a being - Brahman is entirely impersonal, and entirely impossible to describe.

Everything in the universe is part of Brahman, (including each one of us), but Brahman is more than the sum of everything in the universe.

http://www.pearls.org/hinduism/hindu_gods.html

So the word person would not fit inside the theology of Hinduism at all. Being might fit but not person, although it seems as though being may have a different meaning in Hinduism. And secondly Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva (thanks) are just different forms of the same god,(sort of like modalism or the illustration of solid,liquid, gas, an interesting side note, this is how T.D. Jakes defines the trinity, let's ya know the current state of theology in the church, yikes.) within the trinity all three persons exist at the same time, all are personal, and all share the same will or purpose.
>
>And just out of curiousity: what authority, if any, do you
>give to church creeds like the one you mentioned?

Response: Well I don't give them the same authority that I give the Bible, for I believe the Bible alone is inspired. However, I do feel that they are highly valuable, they are great for study and are great for giving complete statments about what Christians believe. However, I do not think they are infallible by any means, but should be read by all who profess Christianity.
>
>(And bible just means book, but you already know that.)

Response: Yep.