Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem? [Archive]

Socrates

July 22nd 2003, 10:28 PM

This is from Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum's audio tape, The life of Christ from a Jewish Perspective, transcribed at http://icgod.com/Main.htm#1.%20The%20‘LOGOS’. Dr F is a Hebrew Christian or Messianic Jew and founder of Ariel Ministries www.ariel.org/.

1. The LOGOS John Chapter 1.

The Gospel of John is often accused of being the most Gentile of the four Gospels. But a more careful study of his Gospel shows that it is just as Jewish if not more so than some of the others. John begins his Gospel with the famous sentence in verse 1 of chapter 1, “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Now most of you probably know that the term John used here is the Greek word Logos which in English would mean “Word”. But because he used the Greek term logos many commentaries on John at this point go into a rather lengthy deviation to explain what exactly logos meant in terms of Greek philosophy. They may take a few pages to do it or they may take many pages to do it depending on the size of the commentary, but in the end they all say basically the same thing.

And what they say is this; That the logos in Greek philosophy had two concepts. These were the concept of reason and the concept of speech. After telling us that in Greek philosophy the logos had these two concepts of reason and speech they then try to point out that what John is doing in these first 18 verses of his gospel, is to show how Jesus comes to fulfil the goals of Greek philosophy.

In that by reason he was the very idea of God and that by speech he was the very expression of God. That’s all well and good to know but what these commentators forget is that by profession John was not a Greek philosopher, but he was a Jewish fisherman. What he really has in mind is not Greek philosophy, but the Jewish theology of that day. In the Rabbinic literature of that day there was a concept that they had developed called the Memra. It is an Aramaic term that means “word”. And since John was writing his gospel in Greek, he of course needed a Greek term to translate the Jewish word Memra. The only Greek term he could use adequately was logos but when he says logos, he does not mean the logos of Greek philosophy, but rather, the Memra of Jewish theology, and we will see this very quickly.

Now if you read through the Rabbinic literature of that day you will discover that the Rabbis taught six things about the Memra. Six things were true about the Memra, and all six things come out one way or the other in these 18 verses.

First of all, the rabbis said the Memra was sometimes the same as God, but sometimes distinct from God. They did not try in their writings to explain away the obvious paradox. How could the Memra on the one hand be the same as God, but on the other hand be distinct from God? They taught both statements as being true, and left it at that. Notice how verse one reads, “In the beginning, was the word, the word was with God”, therefore he was distinct from God, but then he says, “the word was God”, meaning he is the same as God. Like the rabbis at this point, John does not try to explain away the paradox. How could this word be with God, distinct from him, but then at the same time be God? This is explained later only in the terms of the tri-unity, in that the One he is writing about is distinct from God in that he is not God the father, nor is he God the Holy Spirit, yet he is the same as God in that he is God the Son, the second person of that tri-unity. Only in that way, in terms of the tri-unity, could this paradox of the Memra be explained.

The second thing that Rabbis had been saying about the Memra was, The Memra was the agent of Creation. Whenever God created, it was always by means of, or through the Memra, by means of his word. Without the word, the Memra, nothing would exist that now does exist. In verse 3 John says, “all things were made by or through him, and without him was not anything made that had been made.” What the rabbis had said about the Memra, John says is true of this logos. He is the agent of creation. All things were made by or through Him and without Him nothing would exist that now does exist.

The third thing that the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra was that the Memra was also the agent of salvation. Whenever God saved, it was by means of the Memra. For the most part, in the Rabbinic writings the concept of salvation was in the realm of the physical.

Whenever God saved Israel physically such as the exodus, out of the land of Egypt, He did so by means of His Memra, by means of his word. In verse 12 however, we are given a more spiritual dimension of the same truth. In verse 12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Concerning this logos, John says in verse 12, it is those who believe on him, those who receive him; those are the ones who become children of God; they are the ones who receive spiritual salvation, because this one is also the agent of salvation.

The fourth thing the rabbis had been saying about the Memra was that the Memra was the means by which God became visible in the pages of the Old Testament. As you read through the OT, you find that periodically God takes on some type of a visible form. This is often referred to in Jewish literature as the Shekinah. When the rabbis spoke of the Shekinah, it emphasised a visible manifestation of God’s presence. Whenever the invisible God became visible, whenever the omnipresence of God took on a localised form, this visible localised form was the Shekinah Glory. On most occasions it appears as a light or as a fire, or as a cloud or some combination of these three things. That is not the only way it appeared, but in the majority of cases that is the way it appeared — light, fire or cloud. And this was the visible manifestation of God’s presence, this was the Shekinah, and the Shekinah was frequently connected with the glory of God hence the title Shekinah Glory.

Notice what he writes in verse 14, “And the word became flesh”. The word that back in verse one was in the beginning with God, was God, at a certain point in human history, became visible. But this time not in the form of a light, or of a fire, or of a cloud, but this time the word became flesh and John continues to write, “and dwelt among us.” Now of the two words that are often used to describe “dwelling” in Greek, John does not use the regular word for dwelling in verse 14.

Instead he uses a unique word that is really a borrowed word from the Hebrew, it is a word that comes from the word Shekinah. When the Greeks came in contact with the Jewish world after Alexander the Great they came in contact with this word Shekinah, and realised what it conveyed. They liked the term and wanted somehow to incorporate the term into the Greek language, because in Greek mythology, you had the Gods periodically coming down from Mt Olympus in some visible form and intermingling with human beings.

There was one problem and the problem was this; The Jews have a letter in their alphabet the Greeks do not have. The letter shin with which they made the “sh” sound. In English you have to combine two letters “s” and “h” to get the “sh” sound, but in Hebrew just one letter is enough. However, in Greek you cannot combine any number of letters to get that “sh” sound. The Greeks had a hard “s”; they could say “s” but they couldn’t say “sh”.

But what they did was to take the Hebrew word for Shekinah and incorporate it into Greek. They Hellenised it and the Greek word used here is skeinei which is the Greek or Hellenised form for Shekinah. Literally, it does not mean to dwell, but to “tabernacle”. It has its origins in Exodus 40 where the Shekinah Glory in its visible form took up its residence within the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle and for centuries it tabernacled with Israel. But now the Shekinah Glory has returned. (It disappeared from Israel in the days of Ezekiel) Now it has come back, this time in the form of flesh and once again it has tabernacled among us. You notice how in the next ( - - -unintelligble - - - ) said with the glory of God, “we beheld his glory, glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.” The clear statement of verse 14 is that the one John is going to be writing about, Jesus of Nazareth, is the new, visible manifestation of God’s presence. Once again God is in visible form, this time as a man in flesh, and he dwelt, or tabernacled among us. So he was the new visible manifestation which came by means of the word, by means of the Memra.

The fifth thing the rabbis had said about the Memra was that the Memra was also the agent of revelation. Whenever God revealed himself, he did so by means of his Memra, by means of his word. In verse 18 John writes, “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father has declared him.” According to verse 18, one of the ministries of the logos is to come to declare, to reveal the Father. The main theme that runs through the gospel of John is, Jesus the Messiah the Son of God, but John also has several sub-themes that run through his gospel and one of these sub-themes is that Jesus came for the purpose of revealing the Father to men.

That is why John more than Matthew, Mark and Luke combined, tells us more what Jesus taught, while the others seem to be more concerned with what Jesus did. John is more concerned with what Jesus taught and said. We have more discourses in John than in the other three gospels. In these discourses, what Jesus is doing, is revealing the Father to the people of Israel. That is why it is John, rather than Matthew, Mark or Luke that records the question one disciple asked, “Show us the Father,” and Jesus turned to the disciple and said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” All that is true of the nature of the Father, is true of the divine nature of the Son as well, therefore he is the revealer of the Father. The same point is made by the writer to the Hebrews chapter one verses one, two and three, where the writer says that “while in the past, God had revealed himself in various ways (in various portions), has in these last days revealed himself by means of the Son.” He is the agent of revelation.

The sixth and last thing the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra, is that the Memra is also the means by which God signed his covenant in the Old Testament. Of the various covenants made in the OT, either with the world in general, or with Israel in particular, these were signed and sealed by means of the Shekinah Glory.

Now this sixth point does not come out as clearly as the other five points do, but he does hint at it in verse 17 when he says, “The Law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The Law came as the result of the Mosaic covenant, which was signed and sealed by the Shekinah Glory, in the book of Exodus chapter 24. The new manifestation of grace that came with the Messiah is the result of the new covenant, which will be signed and sealed by the death of the Son of God, the Logos or the Memra.

So what John is doing in these 18 verses then, is not showing how Jesus fulfilled the goals of Greek philosophy, but showing that he came to fulfil the Jewish Messianic hope. The very things the rabbis had been teaching about the Memra, is true of this Logos that John will be writing about.

We can summarise what John wrote here in these 18 verse in four simple points.

Number 1, the Word. The Logos, the Memra came in visible form.

Number 2, sadly, the world in general didn’t recognise him.

Number 3, even more sadly, his own Jewish people didn’t recognise him either.

Number 4, those Jews and Gentiles who did, have become the children of this new Shekinah Glory Light.

This then is one example of several that will follow, that if you look at a passage from the Jewish frame of reference it was written in, you can get the full impact of what the writer was trying to say.

AVmetro

July 22nd 2003, 11:31 PM

Ron Macy stated:

In the thread you referenced as a foundation of your understanding of the preexistence of Jesus, you contributed the following objection and response:

Actually, the point of the below cited from my argument was that the "gender" of the 'Logos' is irrelevent to whether or not it is "personal". See below:

Ron Macy:

Logos is a masculine noun and, as I understand it, it is appropriate for masculine nouns to be associated with it. What you didn’t cover in your response is the fact the gender of a noun in no way guarantees personality. It isn’t even a personification. It is just grammar. Why didn’t you mention that in your response?

I think you've taken things a bit turned around as that was my point. Let me give you a little background. I have had CDs in the past cite early English translations which referrenced the 'Word' with an "it". Their argument being that this necessitated that the 'Word' be impersonal.

"It is just grammar" is something with which I wholly agree. As I stated in my reply, the primary basis for determining personality is the context.

One definition for logos I found is “the rational structure of knowledge” about something. (OK, the quote is from Isaac Asimov whom I wouldn’t consider spiritual or a Biblical expert, but he definitely doesn’t have a doctrinal ax to grind.) This definition is illustrated by its use in modern language: biology, geology, theology, etc. To apply this definition to John 1, I think of the the word, “plan.” “In the beginning was the plan (of salvation), and the plan was with God, and the plan was divine.” Jesus was the focus of God’s plan and ultimately the Kingdom of God.

Out of curiosity, was that Asimov's BIG guide to the bible?

I drew my definition of 'Word' from passages such as 1John1:1-2, Rev19:13 et al. Not to exclude the context as a factor. Christ could very well be called "Word" on account of His being the "plan of God". There is nothing wrong with that definition. Yet the definition you have given {in a less nuanced form} does not necessitate that the Word not denote the person of Christ.

It is through Jesus the Kingdom and its inhabitants are prepared. At least that is what I understand Paul to be communicating in Romans 8:20-22. All creation was made with the thought in mind it would one day be redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

I don't see how this (Rom 8) would change anything. I can {and do} agree with the above 100% and yet have it not change my theology one degree.

I believe viewing logos in John 1 as a reference to God’s plan for the salvation of mankind is appropriate and entirely reasonable. As such it does not require Jesus to have existence before His birth.

I don't believe the whole of the context supports this interpretation. And I am also speaking of those verses which precede vs14.

You referenced the Targums and it’s rendering of Genesis 1:27 to support the idea the Jews of Jesus day believed the Word of the Lord was equal to God.

...8<...

All of these are occurrences of the figure of speech known as metonymy. It does not show the Word of the Lord was equal to God. The phrases Word of the Lord and presence of the Lord are metonymic for God.

That is actually very supportive of our point. The Jews used the word "Word" to denote 'YHWH'. Ergo, simply go through the prologue of John's gospel and subsitute 'Logos' with 'YHWH' and you'll see what Jezz and others are coming across with.

...8<...

I also go back to the thought, when A is equal to B, A cannot be B. The Word of the Lord being equal to God is, of necessity, separate and distinct from God. If not, equality is meaningless.

Not at all. Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians. The above might be object to Sabellianism but certainly not to our theology.

Do you have Buzzard and Hunting's book?

With this background it is not so obvious John was trying to say the Word of the Lord was God. I don’t believe John was saying it at all.

Here is a question which I will probably not go into much more than this; Why do you think John referred to the 'Logos' as 'theos'?

God bless

AVmetro

July 22nd 2003, 11:46 PM

Great piece, Socrates! :cwink: IMHO, the "Memra" is one of the best demonstrations. E.g. see:

:arrow: Deuteronomy 4:7…For what people so great, to whom the Lord is so high in the Name of the Word of the Lord? But the custom of (other) nations is to carry their gods upon their shoulders, that they may seem to be nigh them; but they cannot hear with their ears, (be they nigh or) be they afar off; but the Word of the Lord sits upon His throne high and lifted up, and hears our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions. (Targum Jonathan)

:arrow: Genesis 28:20-21…And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, "If the Word of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word of YHWH be my God. (Targum Onkelos)

:arrow: Exodus 3:14...And the Word of YHWH said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." (Jerusalem Targum)

:arrow: Exodus 12:42...The first night, when the Word of YHWH was revealed to the world in order to create it, the world was desolate and void, and darkness spread over the face of the abyss and the Word of the Lord was bright and illuminating and He called it the first night. (Fragmentary Targum)

God bless

Marcus1962

July 24th 2003, 12:21 AM

Here is a quote from Jesus about this as well. It seems very clear about what form Jesus existed in before the Incarnation.

John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." NASU

Jezz

July 24th 2003, 08:25 AM

Sher:
This actually turned out to be a pretty good article :thumb: I'd recommend it for this topic.
Yeah, thanks Sher. I actually emailed the author and he was the one who put me onto the Memra connection.

Interestingly, it just occurred to me to check to see if the Targums explicitly made the connection between the Angel of the LORD and the Memra. I dug this up:

And Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the Name of the Word of the Lord, who had been manifested to her, saying, Blessed be Thou, Eloha, the Living One of all Ages, who hast looked upon my affliction. For she said, Behold, Thou art manifested also unto me, even as Thou wast manifested to Sara my mistress. (Genesis 16:13 - Jerusalem Targum)

Note, it says that "the Word of the Lord" had been manifested to her - and this was just after the Angel of the LORD had appeared to her. Which pretty much seals the connection in my mind. :smile: I might look up some of the other Angel of the LORD manifestations another time.

Ron Macy

July 24th 2003, 09:36 PM

IronMetro,

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Actually, the point of the below cited from my argument was that the "gender" of the 'Logos' is irrelevent to whether or not it is "personal".
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Thank you for clearing that up. Most people communicate the use of the personal pronouns as proof of the personality of the word. I trust you are going to use some other means to show the word is a person. I a looking forward to it.

You asked,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Out of curiosity, was that Asimov's BIG guide to the bible?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I drew my definition of 'Word' from passages such as 1John1:1-2, Rev19:13 et al. Not to exclude the context as a factor. Christ could very well be called "Word" on account of His being the "plan of God". There is nothing wrong with that definition. Yet the definition you have given {in a less nuanced form} does not necessitate that the Word not denote the person of Christ.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I agree 1 John 1:1-2 help us to understand John 1. The parallel of the structure is strong. What I see from this is 1 John 1:1 is the phrase Word of Life is used to complete the meaning of logos intended in John 1:1. It speaks of the good news of salvation through Jesus. It is very similar to the phrase used by Paul in Philippians 2:16. The word of life is the message of the gospel. It is not a person.

I also agree the title, Word of God, is applied to Jesus in Revelation 19:13. I can understand how you would want this to be proof of the personality of the word in John 1, but it does not follow. We are looking at word pictures here. For the title to have any understandable meaning in Revelation, there needs to be a foundation for it somewhere else. There needs to be an understanding of the significance of God’s spoken and written word. The spoken and written words of God form the foundation for the picture of how Jesus fulfills these words and why the title is applied to Him. The logos of John 1 provides this foundation, but it does not prove the logos is a person before the statement in verse 14, which tells us Jesus represents God’s words to us.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
That is actually very supportive of our point. The Jews used the word "Word" to denote 'YHWH'. Ergo, simply go through the prologue of John's gospel and subsitute 'Logos' with 'YHWH' and you'll see what Jezz and others are coming across with.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I am afraid you lost me on this one. I was speaking of the figure of speech, metonymy. There is no way this figure of speech justifies substituting YHWH for logos John 1.

I believe Jezz was attempting to prove the phrase “Word of the Lord” was a person equal to God based on the Targum rendering of Genesis 1:27. I am saying that is not the case. The “Word of the Lord” is no more a person separate from God (or separate in God) than the “White House” is another person in the President of the United States.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Not at all. Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians. The above might be object to Sabellianism but certainly not to our theology.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

My first reaction to your “Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians” statement is to wonder if this means you are exempt from logic.

Let me expand my thought. The teaching of the trinity speaks of one God who exists in three persons. I would think all unqualified references to God would be references to the entirety of God, i.e. all three persons. Any references to the Father would be to one person in God, Jesus, another person, and the Holy Spirit, another person. I believe the statement could be made, “Jesus is equal to the Father” or “Jesus is equal to the Holy Spirit,” but to say Jesus is equal to God requires an existance separate and distinct from God. It says Jesus is separate from God. I guess you can say Jesus is God, but I believe saying Jesus is equal to God contradicts your position.

You asked,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Do you have Buzzard and Hunting's book?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Yes, I do. I have known Anthony Buzzard for well over 25 years. I haven’t got the slightest idea who Charles Hunting is.

You asked,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Here is a question which I will probably not go into much more than this; Why do you think John referred to the 'Logos' as 'theos'?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe the idea of plays on words is well attested in this text. The Hebrew poets and writers were skilled at word play. I think John was doing some word play. I believe John 1:1c should be translated, “and the Word was divine.” I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid.

Ron

Ron Macy

July 24th 2003, 09:37 PM

Socrates,

The article you quoted said,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
What he really has in mind is not Greek philosophy, but the Jewish theology of that day. <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I really appreciate that sentiment. I have heard too many people try to bring Greek philosophy into the scripture. My thought is why would God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sinful activity, try to bring into the church ideas from people who were as bad or worse than those in S & G. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Another place said,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
First of all, the rabbis said the Memra was sometimes the same as God, but sometimes distinct from God. They did not try in their writings to explain away the obvious paradox.

How could this word be with God, distinct from him, but then at the same time be God? This is explained later only in the terms of the tri-unity, in that the One he is writing about is distinct from God in that he is not God the father, nor is he God the Holy Spirit, yet he is the same as God in that he is God the Son, the second person of that tri-unity. Only in that way, in terms of the tri-unity, could this paradox of the Memra be explained.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I suspect this “obvious paradox” is not a paradox. Part of the author’s assumption is the Memra is a person. I don’t believe that is a given. This use of Memra is in the nature of metonymy as I described before. It is a figure of speech. It is not a person.

Ron

Sher

July 24th 2003, 10:59 PM

Today @ 08:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156925#post156925)
Jezz:

Yeah, thanks Sher. I actually emailed the author and he was the one who put me onto the Memra connection.

Hey! That's great ... glad I could help :smile:

:shersig:

AVmetro

July 25th 2003, 12:34 AM

Ron Macy:

Thank you for clearing that up. Most people communicate the use of the personal pronouns as proof of the personality of the word. I trust you are going to use some other means to show the word is a person. I a looking forward to it.

You're welcome. The personal pronouns act merely as supportive evidence. As I stated prior, the evidence for "personality" of the 'Logos' is derived primarily from the immediate context etc.

...8<...

Ron Macy:

I agree 1 John 1:1-2 help us to understand John 1. The parallel of the structure is strong. What I see from this is 1 John 1:1 is the phrase Word of Life is used to complete the meaning of logos intended in John 1:1. It speaks of the good news of salvation through Jesus. It is very similar to the phrase used by Paul in Philippians 2:16. The word of life is the message of the gospel. It is not a person.

But that is precisely what is being shown in 1Jn i.e. that the 'Word' is a person:

1 John 1:1 - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." ..cf.. Luke 24:39 et al.

Jesus is the "gospel" itself. He is the "message of the gospel" and can therefore be referred to as the "Word". Compare, for instance, Jn1:4 with 1 Jn5:11.

Ron Macy:

I also agree the title, Word of God, is applied to Jesus in Revelation 19:13. I can understand how you would want this to be proof of the personality of the word in John 1, but it does not follow.

My point was not so much to prove the 'personality' of the 'Word' in Jn1 by referencing Rev 19:13 so much as it was to demonstrate beyond doubt that the phrase 'Word of God' or more simply 'Word' can (contrary to many of my Unitarian opponent's assertions) denote a personal being. My prime point being; what is to stop the same usage of 'Word' in Rev 19:13 as being applied in Jn1? One certainly can't say "the context" as even Unitarians agree that the Word is {to an arguable (?) extent} "personified". The burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the detractor.

Ron Macy:

We are looking at word pictures here. For the title to have any understandable meaning in Revelation, there needs to be a foundation for it somewhere else. There needs to be an understanding of the significance of God’s spoken and written word. The spoken and written words of God form the foundation for the picture of how Jesus fulfills these words and why the title is applied to Him. The logos of John 1 provides this foundation, but it does not prove the logos is a person before the statement in verse 14, which tells us Jesus represents God’s words to us.

? This doesn't negate any interpretation I hold. It merely assumes that the Word in Jn1 is impersonal whereas I believe "it" to be a personal being as supported by the context. I have already agreed that the title/name 'Word' holds a significance in representing the salvic message of Christ as one possible interpretation. However, this does not require the Word to be impersonal as I explained in my last post. Christ is, for example, called "The Light". Why? Christ, under my view, is called the "Word'' in Jn1 for the same type of reasons. Your above explanation doesn't require that the Word be "impersonal" i.e. a true "it". That is what your argument must demonstrate.
The same Apostle John authored his gospel, the letter of 1Jn in addition to Revelation. In each book Christ is referred to as "the Word". The disputed occurence of reference to a *personal* entity being that of Jn1. You need to explain from the context why this is the exception to John's consistent use of 'Word'.

John 1:7 tells us of the Baptist who witnessed to the 'Light' i.e. Christ. Cf..Jn1:23. John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus. Cf..Jn20:31 The personality of the 'Logos' is consistently emphasized in the prologue. "The monogenhs God who is in the bosom of the Father.." Cf..Jn1:1.

Ron Macy:

I am afraid you lost me on this one. I was speaking of the figure of speech, metonymy. There is no way this figure of speech justifies substituting YHWH for logos John 1.

I believe Jezz was attempting to prove the phrase “Word of the Lord” was a person equal to God based on the Targum rendering of Genesis 1:27. I am saying that is not the case. The “Word of the Lord” is no more a person separate from God (or separate in God) than the “White House” is another person in the President of the United States.

"Answering prayers", being Jacob's "God" et al is the language used of a personal being. I listed a few citations from the Targums in my last post which demonstrate this very thing. You mentioned that 'adonai' was used as a substitute for the name 'YHWH'. Therefore the two denote the same thing - God. It was to that which I was basing my argument on the interchangeability of 'Logos' and 'YHWH'.

Ron Macy:

My first reaction to your “Especially taking into consideration that we are Triunitarians” statement is to wonder if this means you are exempt from logic.

No. I see no logical "contradiction" to the doctrine of the Trinity, if that is what you are implying.

Ron Macy:

Let me expand my thought. The teaching of the trinity speaks of one God who exists in three persons. I would think all unqualified references to God would be references to the entirety of God, i.e. all three persons. Any references to the Father would be to one person in God, Jesus, another person, and the Holy Spirit, another person. I believe the statement could be made, “Jesus is equal to the Father” or “Jesus is equal to the Holy Spirit,” but to say Jesus is equal to God requires an existance separate and distinct from God. It says Jesus is separate from God. I guess you can say Jesus is God, but I believe saying Jesus is equal to God contradicts your position.

Not at all as Trinitarians do not require the word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times. It can be used to denote ontological qualities or be used in a titular fashion etc. It can be used to denote the Father, Son or Holy Spirit individually or to denote the entirety of "God" in a more generic sense. {Borrowing from JPH}, making the statement "Jesus is God" is acceptable whereas stating "God is Jesus" is incomplete.

The rub of the matter being that you are assuming Unitarianism in regards to the word ''God'' ergo Christ cannot be "God" when mentioned seperately in the context of "God". Hence my comment on 'Sabellianism' only add in the above explanation to the Trinitarian use of the word 'God'.

Yet we see a double-standard held by the detractor in passages such as 1Cor8:6 where the "Father" is delineated from the "one Lord" - Christ. Is this to His exclusion as our "Lord"? Surprisingly, I've had Unitarians answer "yes" (!) but...No. See also Jude4 et al. Does this exclude the "Father"? Again, no.

Ron Macy:

Yes, I do. I have known Anthony Buzzard for well over 25 years. I haven’t got the slightest idea who Charles Hunting is.

Many of the arguments I've seen employed by CDs and others of similar presuasion can be found in their book. I've considered purchasing it.

Ron Macy:

I believe the idea of plays on words is well attested in this text. The Hebrew poets and writers were skilled at word play. I think John was doing some word play. I believe John 1:1c should be translated, “and the Word was divine.” I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid.

There is a specific Greek word for "divine", theios which is not used in this context. At best you will get "a god" if not ''God'' or ''deity''. Secondly, you are assuming "word play" as substantiation for your argument. You must demonstrate this from the context. A context which quite emphatically paints the 'Logos' as personal.

God bless you--IM

Ron Macy

July 28th 2003, 08:47 PM

IronMetro,

There are a number of things in your last response I want to discuss, but the following are the ones which grabbed my attention the most. I think they may be the most basic to our discussion. Maybe not.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Not at all as Trinitarians do not require the word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times. It can be used to denote ontological qualities or be used in a titular fashion etc.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I didn’t say I required the “word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times.” I described the usage as “unqualified.” By that I mean there is nothing in the context to suggest which person in the “Godhead” is being referenced.

When one says, “Jesus is equal to God,” there is no qualification of which of the other two persons is being referenced. What rules are you applying to legitimately qualify the statement to one of those persons?

My assumption is since there is no qualification, it should refer to the entirety of the Godhead, thereby making Jesus separate from God. What rules of logic am I violating by making such an assumption?

As I said, I can agree, from your standpoint, the statement could be made, “Jesus is God.”

I started seeing people throw around the word, ontological, a few years ago. I understand the word relates to one’s being or existence. What exactly do you mean when you use the word?

You are the first person I have ever seen use the word, titular, to describe the usage of the word, God. What are you attempting to communicate when you use it?

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The rub of the matter being that you are assuming Unitarianism in regards to the word ''God'' ergo Christ cannot be "God" when mentioned seperately in the context of "God".
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Isn’t it true you are assuming trinitarianism when you approach the use of the word, God? What is it that makes your assumption of trinitarianism valid and my assumption of unitarianism invalid?

Ron

AVmetro

July 28th 2003, 10:55 PM

Ron Macy stated:

IronMetro,

There are a number of things in your last response I want to discuss, but the following are the ones which grabbed my attention the most. I think they may be the most basic to our discussion. Maybe not.

It's a great deal more difficult to demonstrate the deity of Christ in scripture if His preexistence is not established first. Given the thread topic, I don't think Christ's being "God" is all too pertinent at this particular point. JWs, for instance, wholly believe in Christ's prior existence to His birth in Bethlehem. Yet they are staunch anti-Trinitarians.

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Not at all as Trinitarians do not require the word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times. It can be used to denote ontological qualities or be used in a titular fashion etc.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I didn’t say I required the “word "God" to denote the entirety of the Godhead at all times.” I described the usage as “unqualified.” By that I mean there is nothing in the context to suggest which person in the “Godhead” is being referenced.

When one says, “Jesus is equal to God,” there is no qualification of which of the other two persons is being referenced. What rules are you applying to legitimately qualify the statement to one of those persons?

Okay. For instance:

But to the Son He {the Father} says "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...." - Heb1:8

Thomas answered and said to Him {Jesus} "The Lord of me the God of me." - John20:28

In both of the above examples there is only one clear referrent to the word "God". In the first, the Father is the speaker and the passage makes it clear that the address is to "the Son".

In the second, once again we have the referrent clearly in view. Thomas addressing Christ as "my God".

*The point here is not to argue which interpretation of the above verses is correct but to simply demonstrate the methodology employed by Trinitarians when determining "who" is being referred to when the word "God" is being applied in a given context.

Ron Macy:

My assumption is since there is no qualification, it should refer to the entirety of the Godhead, thereby making Jesus separate from God. What rules of logic am I violating by making such an assumption?

Yet as you can see, under the Trinitarian interpretation of such passages as those cited in the above the context can make it patently clear as to who is being referred to as 'theos'.

...8<...

Ron Macy:

I started seeing people throw around the word, ontological, a few years ago. I understand the word relates to one’s being or existence. What exactly do you mean when you use the word?

One's being/nature. E.g. "'Man' is 'flesh'''. "'Jesus' is 'God
'''.

Ron Macy:

You are the first person I have ever seen use the word, titular, to describe the usage of the word, God. What are you attempting to communicate when you use it?

? Like the use of the word "King" or "Lord", 'God' can be used in a titular fashion. I've even seen certain JW apologists (e.g. Greg Stafford et al) insist that it is a "proper name" in some contexts. If it can be used as such then it can certainly function as a 'title'.

Take John10 {i.e. your interpretation}. Is the use of "god" here ontological? No. Is it the "proper name" of those referred to by Asaph in the Psalm? No. What then do we have?

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The rub of the matter being that you are assuming Unitarianism in regards to the word ''God'' ergo Christ cannot be "God" when mentioned seperately in the context of "God".
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Isn’t it true you are assuming trinitarianism when you approach the use of the word, God? What is it that makes your assumption of trinitarianism valid and my assumption of unitarianism invalid?

It's not really pertinent whether or not I assume my view or not. That wasn't the point. My point being, one cannot employ their assumptions as a rebuttal to another's view. That is a circular argument. See my quote above. Now that I more understand your objection (hopefully :cwink:)-

You had stated:

"My assumption is since there is no qualification, it should refer to the entirety of the Godhead, thereby making Jesus separate from God."

First, stating that Christ is "equal to God" necessarily entails that He be God for God has no equal. To those who did not initially know that Christ was "God" the language is oppropriate.

Christ is equal to "God" {i.e. the God of our fathers as they may have understood Him} and is therefore naturally included in the identity of "God". This, IMHO, is the point of John1:1s dual use of the word 'theos'. Take their idea of who God is and then place Christ within this identification.

I would compare an example as such to John1:1 where the logos is said to be WITH "God" and yet also to be "God".

I would also harmonize the rest of my scriptural support for my belief in the Trinity and therefore take any reference to 'theos' in, say, a sentence such as "Christ and God" to be in reference to the 'Father'. "God" being used, perhaps, in titular fashion rather than ontological.

One such example being Jn1:18. The Son is referred to as being the monogenhs 'God' who is said to be in the 'bosom of the Father' {i.e. "with God"..cf..Jn1:1}. It is in this context that the scriptures state that "no one has seen God" (?). Elsewhere in John, Christ more specifically states "no one has seen the Father"..cf..Is6. Therefore, I would qualify, for example, Jn1:18 by said harmonization.

Is this assuming my case? Not necessarily.

Rather it is taking what I know from scripture elsewhere and harmonizing it in such a way that the 'Son' is 'God' and the 'Father' is 'God' yet the 'Son' is not the 'Father' and the 'Father' is not the 'Son'.

God bless

darcutm

July 29th 2003, 02:54 PM

John 8:58

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
KJV

John 8:58

58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
NIV

John 8:58

58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
NKJV

John 8:58

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.
ASV

John 8:58

58 Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"
NLT

John 8:58

58 Jesús les dijo: De cierto, de cierto os digo: Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy.
(from RVR 1960 © 1960 Sociedades Biblicas en América Latina.)

IN HIM

OldShepherd

July 30th 2003, 03:34 AM

07-25-2003 @ 11:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=157637#post157637)
Ron Macy:

I believe the idea of plays on words is well attested in this text. The Hebrew poets and writers were skilled at word play. I think John was doing some word play. I believe John 1:1c should be translated, “and the Word was divine.” I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid.

Ron

There is a word for divine in Greek, "theios." I am not aware of any instant in the NT where qeoV is used as an adjective.

"I am sure this might stir up some debate, but I think the argumentation and evidence to support this is valid." What evidence? Did the early church, e.g., consider John to be using "word play" or did they consider John to be saying that Jesus IS God? References on request. Here is something I have posted before. The actual Jewish POV from the Jewish Encyclopedia, citing ancient Jewish sources.
Notice in this brief quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia, in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, the Aramaic word, “memra” was substituted for YHWH. This quote has over 100 citations where that was done. Before and during the time of John, Jews believed that The “Memra”, i.e.”The Word”, WAS God. John wasn’t saying anything new.

-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural “You have not believed in the Lord,” Targ. Deut. i. 32 has “You have not believed in the word of the Lord”; instead of “I shall require it [vengeance] from him,” Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has “My word shall require it.” “The Memra,” instead of “the Lord,” is “the consuming fire” (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra “plagued the people” (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). “The Memra smote him” (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not “God,” but “the Memra,” is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. “the Shekinah”; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: “I will order My Memra to be there”). “I will cover thee with My Memra,” instead of “My hand” (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of “My soul,” “My Memra shall reject you” (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). “The voice of the Memra,” instead of “God,” is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, “I stood between the Lord and you” (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, “between the Memra of the Lord and you”; and the “sign between Me and you” becomes a “sign between My Memra and you” (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, “the messenger-angel”]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His “hand,” but His “Memra has laid the foundation of the earth” (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. “The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel” (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): “My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people” (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). “My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen”; “the Memra will roar to gather the exiled” (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is “the witness” (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and “will rejoice over them to do them good” (l.c. xxxii. 41). “In the Memra the redemption will be found” (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). “The holy Word” was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

Reasonable

July 30th 2003, 08:31 AM

Today @ 08:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162567#post162567)
OldShepherd:

There is a word for divine in Greek, "theios." I am not aware of any instant in the NT where qeoV is used as an adjective.

William Barclay writes...
"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs." -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

Barclay is a full-blooded Trinitarian and definitely believes Jesus is God. Now I know there are other scholars who disagree with Barclay on this but there are also a considerable number who do agree with him. Your choice as to who you believe. Either side can fit the Trinitarian faith.

OldShepherd

July 30th 2003, 09:26 AM

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162633#post162633)
Reasonable:

William Barclay writes...
"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs." -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

Barclay is a full-blooded Trinitarian and definitely believes Jesus is God. Now I know there are other scholars who disagree with Barclay on this but there are also a considerable number who do agree with him. Your choice as to who you believe. Either side can fit the Trinitarian faith.

What language studies is this based on? How many occurrences of this construction with other, non Theologically or Christologically significant, nouns, in the GNT? How do Barclay's views (dis)agree with the Jewish view I posted? Even the best of scholars can err.

Also what is the predominant view among the early church fathers on this? For example Polycarp and Ignatius who were disciples of John.

Reasonable

July 30th 2003, 09:39 AM

Today @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162668#post162668)
OldShepherd:

What language studies is this based on? How many occurrences of this construction with other, non Theologically or Christologically significant, nouns, in the GNT? How do Barclay's views (dis)agree with the Jewish view I posted? Even the best of scholars can err.

Also what is the predominant view among the early church fathers on this? For example Polycarp and Ignatius who were disciples of John.

Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from.

OldShepherd

July 30th 2003, 10:20 AM

Yesterday @ 11:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162674#post162674)
Reasonable:

Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from.

I'm sorry, you posted it I'm taking it up with you. I did not see the name of the publisher or a publication date so I am assuming that this is just a blind cut and paste from some "anti" website, so I choose to ignore it. If you can't even defend what you are posting why should I bother with it. You have a real nice day.

Edited to add: I did a quick search online and found your source "Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quoting from Barclay's book, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1963, pp. 23, 24." Which is why you can't answer my questions it IS a blind cut and paste. Now for the TRUTH because the WBTS deliberately misquoted Barclay. What the WBTS deliberately left out is shown in red. Below that is a letter Barclay wrote to a friend who informed him how the WBTS misquoted and mirepresented him.

Take it up with your so-called leaders. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from, only mine is the truth.

In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)

"God himself took this human flesh upon him." (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p27)

Dear Professor Donald Shoemaker,

Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.

If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point.

It was good of you to write and I don't think I need say anything more to make my position clear.

With every good wish.

Yours Sincerely

William Barclay.

(Letter written by William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker of Biola College after Shoemaker informed Barclay how the Watchtower had misquoted him, 26 August, 1977)

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Barclay.htm

Reasonable

July 30th 2003, 10:35 AM

Today @ 03:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162700#post162700)
OldShepherd:

I'm sorry, you posted it I'm taking it up with you. I did not see the name of the publisher or a publication date so I am assuming that this is just a blind cut and paste from some "anti" website, so I choose to ignore it. If you can't even defend what you are posting why should I bother with it. You have a real nice day.

Well, if it was a cut and paste from an anti-Trinitarian web site, it must be wrong, huh? I don't have to defend William Barclay's analysis. I'm not a greek scholar and neither are you. I just read what the scholars have to say. You said you were not aware of theos being used as an adjective and I pointed out a scholar who disagrees. I could point out more too but your response would be the same. But, if you want to check out the book, it's available at Border's Bookstores and possibly Barnes&Noble.

Jesus as They Saw Him by William Barclay, William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI. 1962. And if you want something more modern, see Jesus as God by Murray Harris.

And where did Barclay's analysis contradict your quotes from the Jewish sources? In fact, where does he contradict any Trinitarian teaching? You're the one who spouted off your opinion that theos is not used as an adjective. I simply spouted off someone with a little more qualifications than you. I don't care what you accept or don't accept. This post is for the benefit of other readers who may want to see what real scholars have to say on the subject.

Reasonable

July 30th 2003, 10:49 AM

OS,
After looking at my above post, I realize it was negative and attacking. I apologize for that. it was not my intentions to attack you and i regret the way i said things.

And moderator: I know I am not supposed to post twice in a row but an apology was in order on my behalf and delaying apologies is never a good thing. But you can chastise me anyway if you want :teeth:

OldShepherd

July 30th 2003, 10:56 AM

Today @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162707#post162707)
Reasonable:

Well, if it was a cut and paste from an anti-Trinitarian web site, it must be wrong, huh? I don't have to defend William Barclay's analysis. I'm not a greek scholar and neither are you. I just read what the scholars have to say. You said you were not aware of theos being used as an adjective and I pointed out a scholar who disagrees. I could point out more too but your response would be the same. But, if you want to check out the book, it's available at Border's Bookstores and possibly Barnes&Noble.

Like Hannibal Smith used to say "I love it when a plan comes together." See addition to my previous post. Do you have any more chopped up, phonied up, JW cut and paste for me? The site I linked to has reviewed virtually every piece of JW anti-Trinitarian writing and exposed their deception and I will be glad to expose them and you. Call, raise, or fold.

Reasonable

July 30th 2003, 11:48 AM

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162730#post162730)
OldShepherd:

Like Hannibal Smith used to say "I love it when a plan comes together." See addition to my previous post. Do you have any more chopped up, phonied up, JW cut and paste for me? The site I linked to has reviewed virtually every piece of JW anti-Trinitarian writing and exposed their deception and I will be glad to expose them and you. Call, raise, or fold.

[Biting my tounge because I know all those reading this thread will see who is being...unreasonable]

OS, you should do a little more research before coming off so cocky. I am not familair with the book you are talking about (but I would like to get it as I did enjoy the one book of Barclay I do have) but I find it hard to believe you were not able to read the title of the book I was quoting from, of which words do not even appear in the website you quoted. How in the world did you miss this point? Is this representative of the quality of research you do? And where in the world did you get the idea I was not a Trinitarian? I quoted a Trinitarian, not to disprove the Trinity but to show that theos is used as an adjective of Christ. That is, Christ is of the same nature as God the Fther but not identical to God the Father.

The book Barclay wrote that I was quoting from is called "Jesus as They Saw Him" and I gave you all the information you need to find it as it is still available. I bought it at Borders last year. Or you can order on the internet.

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?S=R&wauth=William+barclay&siteID=1JSk6CbYEf0-ETqsrqRowmy0m40sfcz9Vw

or from Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802817750/qid%3D1059579232/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-5841472-5494569

Instead of being so bitter when someone shows you a differing opinion, you might want to actually consider what they said and at least, at LEAST read what they said (and where they got it from) so you don't look like a fool.

Ron Macy

July 30th 2003, 08:39 PM

IronMetro,

I apologize for sidetracking the thread.

In your previous comments you wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The personal pronouns act merely as supportive evidence. As I stated prior, the evidence for "personality" of the 'Logos' is derived primarily from the immediate context etc.

And

John 1:7 tells us of the Baptist who witnessed to the 'Light' i.e. Christ. Cf..Jn1:23. John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus. Cf..Jn20:31 The personaity of @he 'Logs' is cnsistenly emphhsized it the pr.logue. "The monogenhs God who is in the bosom of the Father.." Cf..Jn1:1.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Logos can be understood as God’s plan of salvation. John definitely witnessed to that light. He preached the need of repentance as a condition of entering the Kingdom of God, Mt. 3:2, 8; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:2, 3, 7,8. He also preached the coming of the Messiah and the judgment to come, Mt 3:11, 12; Mk 1:7, 8; Lk 3:16, 17.

Notice the comment Luke made in 3:18; “So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.” There are two parts to the gospel message, the Kingdom of God and Jesus. Compare Acts 8:12 and Acts 28:31. The ‘Light’ to which John witnessed was more than just Jesus, it involved the Kingdom of God as well.

With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

Your statement, “John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus,” is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren’t there. Since the name of Jesus isn’t mentioned until verse 17 and the mention of Jesus’ birth isn’t until verse 14, I don’t believe Jesus should be read ‘back’ into verse 12. I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

Consider the distinction John made in Lk 3:8 and Mt 3:9. He spoke of God raising “up children to Abraham” from the stones on the ground. He spoke of the power of God and the idea of the Messiah before he specifically identified Jesus as the Messiah. I believe this supports understanding the name in John 1:12 as being that of God and not of Jesus.
There is no reason to believe John the Baptist believed Jesus was God.

Ron

Ron Macy

July 30th 2003, 10:58 PM

I once started a Greek correspondence course from Moody Bible Institute. I never finished it. The text book used for this course was Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers. Broadman Press. Nashville, TN 1950

In Lesson 32 , The Article, on Page 129-130, Ray Summers says, “This difference is clearly seen in the use of ‘ho theos’ and ‘theos’. ‘Ho theos’ is used of the divine Person “God.” ‘Theos’ is used (generally) of the divine character or essence of God. Thus ‘in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (‘ton theon’) and the Word was divine (‘theos’)’ gives the sense.”

Ron

AVmetro

July 31st 2003, 01:04 AM

Reasonable - Your second post is fine. And your apology to OS shows good character on your part. Thank you.

Yesterday @ 09:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162721#post162721)
Reasonable:

OS,
After looking at my above post, I realize it was negative and attacking. I apologize for that. it was not my intentions to attack you and i regret the way i said things.

And moderator: I know I am not supposed to post twice in a row but an apology was in order on my behalf and delaying apologies is never a good thing. But you can chastise me anyway if you want :teeth:

AVmetro

July 31st 2003, 01:39 AM

It's hard to decide if this aspect of the argument [i.e. the rendering of 'theos' in Jn1] should continue in this thread or be discussed in one of it's own. This being that it's somewhat relevant to the topic yet at the same time not entirely in some's opinion.

I'll make an attempt (as best I can) to keep my argument on this particular aspect to a minimum.

OS, Reasonable - either of you are more than welcome to start a new thread on the topic. I'd be interested in viewing/discussing the topic as well. Thank you.

Entertaining this issue for a bit....

Citation from Daniel Wallace's 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics':

"The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father" [Wallace, p. 269].

The occurence of theos in reference to the logos is more along the lines of "the/a deity" rather than merely "divine''. That is the point I believe OS is trying to make. As stated before, had "divine" been in the Apostles mind he would have most likely used theios.

**I should make my point in arguing the above clear in that I believe it works against the logos being the mere "plan" of God. Rather it makes the ''Word'' itself a personal deity. Personal like that in 1Jn1:1-2 and Revelation 19:13. See also 1Cor1:24...cf...Prov8:22 for a similar idea.

However, because the rendering of 'theos' in John1 is a whole world of argument in and of itself, I'll leave it with the above for now (unless a thread is initiated then I'll participate as best I can there).

>

Ron Macy-

...8<...

Ron Macy:

In your previous comments you wrote,

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The personal pronouns act merely as supportive evidence. As I stated prior, the evidence for "personality" of the 'Logos' is derived primarily from the immediate context etc.

And

John 1:7 tells us of the Baptist who witnessed to the 'Light' i.e. Christ. Cf..Jn1:23. John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus. Cf..Jn20:31 The personality of the 'Logos' is consistently emphasized in the prologue. "The monogenhs God who is in the bosom of the Father.." Cf..Jn1:1.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Logos can be understood as God’s plan of salvation.

It could be but I don't believe there is any indication of such in the context. Secondly, my whole point from the use of "theos" in reference to the 'Logos' was also meant to indicate otherwise.

Ron Macy:

John definitely witnessed to that light. He preached the need of repentance as a condition of entering the Kingdom of God, Mt. 3:2, 8; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:2, 3, 7,8. He also preached the coming of the Messiah and the judgment to come, Mt 3:11, 12; Mk 1:7, 8; Lk 3:16, 17.

Yet the need for repentance was in preparation for the coming "King". The "Kingdom of God" and the "coming of the Messiah" go hand in hand. You cited Matthew 3:2 yet read vs3. I am basing my interpretation of vs7 from the patent parallels to Jn1:23, 27, 29, 32 etc.

The fallacy with your interpretation is that, although you recognize that Christ is a part of the "plan", you exclude Christ from being the "light" in John's prologue (vs7). Yet this does not work. Why? Read:

John 1:7-8 - "This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." [NKJV]

Why is it important to John to point out that John the Baptist is not the "Light"? Does the Apostle fear that we might confuse the "Kingdom of God" and the person of 'John the Baptist'? Hardly.

Rather, we are not to confuse the one who came baptizing with the one to whom he was to witness i.e. 'Jesus Christ'.

Now compare with:

vs24 - "Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him, saying "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. It is He who, coming after me, if preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose." [NKJV]

I.e. a direct parallel to vss 7-8.

Ron Macy:

Notice the comment Luke made in 3:18; “So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.” There are two parts to the gospel message, the Kingdom of God and Jesus. Compare Acts 8:12 and Acts 28:31. The ‘Light’ to which John witnessed was more than just Jesus, it involved the Kingdom of God as well.

Same as above. If you are not excluding Christ as the "Light" to whom John witnessed, then what is your point? John the Baptist is nonetheless witnessing to the person of Christ who ushers in the "Kingdom of God". Your interpretation doesn't harm mine. Rather, it merely serves to set up a smokescreen.

Ron Macy:

With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

Why? You have given, IMHO, an unlikely alternative explanation, yet no reason why I should not view the text as it literally reads. Without the use of a priori assumptions, tell me why I shouldn't interpret the prologue as I do. Remember, this has little to do with Trinitarianism and everything to do with preexistence (as the JWs et al believe).

Ron Macy:

Your statement, “John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus,” is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren’t there.

1.] I don't believe it's misleading in the slightest.

2.] My interpretation has nothing to do with my '"enthusiasm"' for the Trinity.

Remember my point on the JWs et al and their common acceptance of Christ's preexistence.

Ron Macy:

Since the name of Jesus isn’t mentioned until verse 17

This of course, assumes that the "name" does not denote 'Jesus'. I may as well counter your argument with the fact that the 'name' of God appears nowhere in the context. Nowhere in the NT in fact.

Again, I based my interpretation, not by 'reading into the text', but by simply drawing a direct parallel i.e. John 20:31 et al. The importance of Christ's *Name* in relation to our salvation is highly emphasized in the New Testament. Notice that {one of} the theme(s) of John's prologue deals with "Life". In fact, in the context of vss 12-13 it is the eternal life granted to those 'born again'. This same idea is explicitly expressed in John3:16-18.

Ron Macy:

and the mention of Jesus’ birth isn’t until verse 14, I don’t believe Jesus should be read ‘back’ into verse 12.

I don't believe the prologue is in "chronological order" per se
. Simply read the previous verse:

vs 11 - "He came to His own, and His own did not recieve Him *. vs 12 But as many as recieved Him, to them He gave the right toi become children of God, to those who believe in His Name."

*This verse precedes vs14 i.e. the 'incarnation' as Trinitarians have it. When did this (vs11) occur?

I may as well include vs7..cf..vs32.

Ron Macy:

I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

Yet we see your reasoning for such is unsubstantiated. Are you a JW? Do you believe that the Tetragrammatron plays a role in our salvation? Can you pronouce it? Do you call on the name of 'YHWH' to be saved? Or of the Lord Jesus Christ?

That is, the monogenhs 'God' who is in the bosom {i.e. "with" ..cf.. vs1} the 'Father'.

Ron Macy:

Consider the distinction John made in Lk 3:8 and Mt 3:9. He spoke of God raising “up children to Abraham” from the stones on the ground. He spoke of the power of God and the idea of the Messiah before he specifically identified Jesus as the Messiah. I believe this supports understanding the name in John 1:12 as being that of God and not of Jesus.

(?) I'm not seeing how this is relevant.

Ron Macy:

There is no reason to believe John the Baptist believed Jesus was God.

I believe there is. When I come around to vss 27 and 30 (which further support my interpretation of Jn1:1) I'll explain 'why'.

God bless

OldShepherd

July 31st 2003, 09:46 AM

Today @ 10:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163153#post163153)
Ron Macy:

Logos can be understood as God’s plan of salvation.
* * *
With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

Your statement, “John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus,” is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren’t there.

What is wrong with this statement? Would it not be appropriate to say, Ron you should not let your enthusiam for whatever anti-Trinity belief you are espousing bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren't there? I do not see the words or the thought, "God’s plan of salvation." in John 1:1-14. Also I have done considerable research on the word logoV and I don't think "plan" is one of the definitions.

Ron:
Since the name of Jesus isn’t mentioned until verse 17 and the mention of Jesus’ birth isn’t until verse 14, I don’t believe Jesus should be read ‘back’ into verse 12. I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

If the logoV of vss. 1-13 is NOT Jesus, how did Jesus, acting on Himself, become flesh in vs. 14? "the Word was made flesh" of the KJV is not totally correct. "the word became flesh" of the NIV and ASV is more correct.

egeneto, in vs. 14, is in the middle-deponent mood. This means that the subject, i.e. the logoV is "the doer or performer of the action."

How can a "plan" in God's mind, or sonic vibrations in the air act on themself and "become" anything?
John 1:14 And the Word [logoV] was made [egeneto] flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

5784 Voice-Active

The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy performs the action.

5788 Voice-Middle Deponent

The middle deponent forms in almost all cases are translated as being in the active voice.

Jezz

August 1st 2003, 02:37 AM

Hi Ron,

Ron Macy:
All of these are occurrences of the figure of speech known as metonymy. It does not show the Word of the Lord was equal to God. The phrases Word of the Lord and presence of the Lord are metonymic for God.
Metonymic or not, the fact remains that they were used in the Targums where the Hebrew refers to God, indicates that at the very least they considered the Word to have a personality of its own. If it didn't have personality, then it would not have been depicted in the role of God (a personal being). Thus, the Word of the Lord was a person in Jewish thought. They didn't use the Word of the Lord as a metonym for wind, sunshine, rain, or some other non-personal thing, for example.

That reminds me, by your use of logic, here. The Presence of the Lord is also equal to God, but you made no mention of it. Why was that?
There was no point in mentioning the Presence of the Lord or what the Jews thought of it. We were discussing the Word of the Lord and what it meant to the Jews of John's day, so that we can better understand what John meant in John 1:1. The Jewish concept of the Presence of the Lord is therefore a red herring in this context.

I also go back to the thought, when A is equal to B, A cannot be B. The Word of the Lord being equal to God is, of necessity, separate and distinct from God. If not, equality is meaningless.
Firstly, on a technical note: logically speaking this is false. An equivalence relation has three properties: 1. reflexivity (ie, A=A), 2. transitivity (ie, if A=B and B=C, then A=C), and 3. symmetry (ie, if A=B then B=A). So contrary to what you claimed (if A is B, then A cannot equal B otherwise equality is meaningless), the requirement of reflexivity actually requires that if A is B, then A must equal B, otherwise equality is meaningless. Nothing is more equal to an entity than itself.

Secondly, the orthodox Trinitarian position is as you say - that the Word of the Lord is equal to yet distinct from God (the Father).

But those two points are both a little off-topic. The topic of discussion is Jesus' pre-existence. If the Word of God it is equal to God, who is a person, then the Word of God must be a person in its own right. Thus, Jesus (being the Word made flesh) was a person before his birth.

I will get to your thoughts about John 8:58. I want to see what else comes up about John 1, first. I appreciate your patience.
Ok, I've been patient for a while now, and I've seen you make various arguments against John 1:1. I don't agree with those arguments, but I think it's time to more on and address this verse, because it is far more clear from this verse that Jesus pre-existed his birth. In fact, there are a bunch of such statements which make Jesus' pre-existence obvious - much more so than John 1:1 (which is why it puzzles me that you continue to focus on John 1:1). If you really want to demonstrate that Jesus was not pre-existent, then you've got a bit more work to do.

Here are some verses (all from the NIV):
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Jesus, in his own words, said that he came down from heaven. Which means that he must have been in heaven before he became flesh.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Jesus claimed to have glory before the world began. How could he have something before he existed?

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

If he was returning to his Father, he must have already been with his Father before he became flesh.

Colossians 1:15-17 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

According to Paul, he was "firstborn over all creation", and "by him all things were created". He must have existed before all things if all things were created through him, no? Verse 17 actually says this.

Finally, the clearest one (which I mentioned earlier):

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

He was, before Abraham was born. Unless Abraham was born after Jesus became flesh, then he must have pre-existed his birth.

So forget minor quibblings over John 1:1 - why argue over that speck of dust, when there's an entire sand dune in the rest of the NT testifying to Jesus' pre-existence? :smile:

OldShepherd

August 1st 2003, 09:44 AM

07-30-2003 @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162567#post162567)
OldShepherd:

There is a word [adjective] for divine in Greek, qeioV I am not aware of any instant in the NT where qeoV is used as an adjective.

This post still has NOT been refuted, despite a quote from William Barclay. ALL the major Greek language sources, BAGD, TDNT, and LSJ, list qeoV as a noun, not an adjective. LSJ is linked here. I repeat, unless the occurrence in John 1:1, is the only instant, qeoV is never used in the GNT as an adjective and I am not aware of any word/language studies or any examples of this construction with other, non Theologically or Christologically significant, nouns, in the GNT. Thus, the logoV was toward God and was God, the logoV acting on Himself became flesh, therefore the logoV/Jesus preexisted.

http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2348292

OldShepherd

August 3rd 2003, 06:57 AM

07-31-2003 @ 12:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162707#post162707)
Reasonable:

Well, if it was a cut and paste from an anti-Trinitarian web site, it must be wrong, huh? I don't have to defend William Barclay's analysis. I'm not a greek scholar and neither are you. I just read what the scholars have to say. You said you were not aware of theos being used as an adjective and I pointed out a scholar who disagrees. I could point out more too but your response would be the same. But, if you want to check out the book, it's available at Border's Bookstores and possibly Barnes & Noble.

Barclay was a Universalist, he believed in the end everyone will be saved, saint, sinner, martyr, murderer. Do you think his views on that point also merit consideration?

Reasonable

August 4th 2003, 09:23 AM

Yesterday @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166065#post166065)
OldShepherd:

Barclay was a Universalist, he believed in the end everyone will be saved, saint, sinner, martyr, murderer. Do you think his views on that point also merit consideration?

OS,
Your thorough research and fact finding has led you to yet another "brilliant" deduction.

Does anyone else want to field this one? Read the two posts at the top of the page to see what you'll be dealing with. Even when obviously wrong we can't eek an "oops" or an apology out of him. Not the kind of person I want to waste my time on. Now how does this ignore button work...

I'm off to trash all of my books written by Catholic, Episopallian, Methodist, Luthern, Presbyterian or any other scholars who happen to teach a doctrine I don't beleive. After all, if they are wrong on one point, they must be wrong on them all.

OldShepherd

August 4th 2003, 07:28 PM

Yesterday @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166688#post166688)
Reasonable:

OS,
Your thorough research and fact finding has led you to yet another "brilliant" deduction.

Does anyone else want to field this one? Read the two posts at the top of the page to see what you'll be dealing with. Even when obviously wrong we can't eek an "oops" or an apology out of him. Not the kind of person I want to waste my time on. Now how does this ignore button work...

I'm off to trash all of my books written by Catholic, Episopallian, Methodist, Luthern, Presbyterian or any other scholars who happen to teach a doctrine I don't beleive. After all, if they are wrong on one point, they must be wrong on them all.

I note with interest you ignored my post which immediately precedes the one you are responding to, in which I cite acknowledged Greek language resources. And OBTW was Barclay noted for Greek language studies? I still have seen absolutely no language studies or Biblical exemplars to back up his views on the use of "Theos" in John 1:1. So his view of "theos" is just that his view, NOT a documented historical or Biblical view, just like his view on Universalism. With his view and $2.00 you can get a cup of Latte almost anywhere.

And why should I apologize? You were the one that set the tone for this discussion. I asked reasonable and legitimate questions about your Barclay quote. You replied with a snotty and snide, "Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from." Blowing off my questions and at the same time presuming to teach with one short, undocumneted, unsubstantiated, quote from one guy. I guess everyone here is just supposed to go belly up like a dead carp and believe anything and everything you post without asking any questions.

Evidently just like the followers of Koresh and Jones you have your one scholar, Barclay, you want to believe and no amount of scholarship is going to change your mind.

Hey I think I figured out what got your draw's in a snit. I am terribly sorry that I got the name of your book wrong. But the same words appeared in another book by Barclay, on almost the same pages.

Reasonable

August 5th 2003, 08:35 AM

Today @ 12:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167091#post167091)
OldShepherd:

I note with interest you ignored my post which immediately precedes the one you are responding to, in which I cite acknowledged Greek language resources. And OBTW was Barclay noted for Greek language studies? I still have seen absolutely no language studies or Biblical exemplars to back up his views on the use of "Theos" in John 1:1. So his view of "theos" is just that his view, NOT a documented historical or Biblical view, just like his view on Universalism. With his view and $2.00 you can get a cup of Latte almost anywhere.

Because I didn't know you needed a certain quota of scholars to give consideration to something. And I'm quite sure if Barclay was in fact the only one who felt that way his opinion would be more valid than yours.

And why should I apologize? You were the one that set the tone for this discussion. I asked reasonable and legitimate questions about your Barclay quote. You replied with a snotty and snide, "Take it up with the scholars. I'm just posting information that you can choose to either learn from or not learn from." Blowing off my questions and at the same time presuming to teach with one short, undocumneted, unsubstantiated, quote from one guy. I guess everyone here is just supposed to go belly up like a dead carp and believe anything and everything you post without asking any questions.

Yes. And I think I apologized too. I wasn't trying to defend Barclay or his opinion. You said you hadn't seen anything on theos being an adjective. I wasn't even saying I agreed with Barclay. I was just enlightening you.

Evidently just like the followers of Koresh and Jones you have your one scholar, Barclay, you want to believe and no amount of scholarship is going to change your mind.

One scholar? Look, I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of it. You seem to be somewhat nifty at searching the internet (just not very precise). Search "theos" and "adjective" and see what you come up with. Here's a few more quotes from my own library. Again, I could care less but I do seem to be better informed in this area.

F.F. Bruce (heard of him?)-"Another reason to omit the article [at John 1:1] is if the noun is functioning as a predicate adjective, giving a quality of the subject. That is probably John's reason for not including it here."
"Hard Sayings of the Bible"
Intervarisity Press, 1996, pg 491

The book "Liguistic Key to the Greek New Testament" by Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Rogers states regarding John 1:1, "The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature of theos." (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1980 pg 227) -As quoted from the book "The Trinity: Eidence and Issues" by Robert Morey. (A so-so book on the Trinity)

In his book "Jesus as God", Murray Harris discusses the adjectival meaning of theos at John 1:1 and quotes two more scholars for support. They are R.H. Strachan in his book "The Fourth Gospel: It's Significance and Environment-3rd Ed." (London, SCM, 1941) Harris quotes the book regarding John 1:1 with "Here the word theos has no article, this giving it the significance of an adjective."

Additionally, Harris quotes W. Temple as saying "The term 'God' is fully substantival in the first clause- it is predicative and not far from adjectival in the second."- "Reading St. John's Gospel", London: MacMillan, 1945

And note what those pesky Catholics are up to regarding this verse. The New American Bible states this regarding John 1:1
"Was God:lack of definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

So far your whole argument has been opening a lexicon and noting the word "noun" next to "theos". Silence is not an arguement so unless you have scholars that specifically say "theos" cannot be an adjective then your out weighed 5 scholars to none.

Hey I think I figured out what got your draw's in a snit. I am terribly sorry that I got the name of your book wrong. But the same words appeared in another book by Barclay, on almost the same pages.

Well actually, you got both the words and the book title wrong. Here's both:
________________________________________________
In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)

"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs...
"John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs." -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

___________________________________________

They're not the same words. And the really bad part was your knee jerk reaction as if I was a JW. I'm through discussing this as this thread is not the place and I really don't have any reason to defend F.F. Bruce or William Barclay. I'm aware there are a number of takes on the grammar around John 1:1, all by Trinitarian scholars. Now you are familiar with one more. I suggest you get "Jesus as God" by Harris as there are a number of different arguments on the meaning of theos. Going to a lexicon won't get you too far in this subject.

OldShepherd

August 5th 2003, 10:16 AM

Today @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167405#post167405)
Reasonable:

Because I didn't know you needed a certain quota of scholars to give consideration to something. And I'm quite sure if Barclay was in fact the only one who felt that way his opinion would be more valid than yours.

A certain quota of scholars? You quoted one guy, and he is not even a noted Greek scholar.

Yes. And I think I apologized too.

For the second post, not the first.

Here's a few more quotes from my own library. Again, I could care less but I do seem to be better informed in this area.

Other than John 1:1 are there any other examples in the entire creation, of Theos or any other non-Christologically or non-Theologically significant noun being used as an adjective.

F.F. Bruce (heard of him?)- That is probably John's reason for not including it here.

Probably? Now that is REAL convincing

The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature of theos.

My 1996 copy of Morey has, "The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature (John 1:1)", on p. 268. And note this does NOT say Theos IS an adjective. A noun can emphasize the character and nature.

Harris quotes the book regarding John 1:1 with Here the word theos has no article, this giving it the significance of an adjective.

"giving it the significance" does NOT say a noun is an adjective.

The term 'God' is fully substantival in the first clause- it is predicative and not far from adjectival in the second.

"not far from adjectival" Are you serious? "Not far" does not change a noun into an adjective.

And note what those pesky Catholics are up to regarding this verse. The New American Bible states this regarding John 1:1
Was God:lack of definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.

More pesky asininity. What is a predicate? Can a noun be a predicate without being and adjective? Does being a predicate change a noun into an adjective?

So far your whole argument has been opening a lexicon and noting the word "noun" next to "theos".

No I checked three (3) of the major Greek language resources, BAGD, TDNT, and LSJ. And I didn't even mention Strong's or Robertson.

Silence is not an arguement so unless you have scholars that specifically say "theos" cannot be an adjective then your out weighed 5 scholars to none.

You have demonstrated you know diddly squat about language. That is NOT an argument from silence. The resources do not say that Theos is a verb, adverb, preposition, or any other part of speech, you want to argue those are possible too?

I'm aware there are a number of takes on the grammar around John 1:1, all by Trinitarian scholars. Now you are familiar with one more. I suggest you get "Jesus as God" by Harris as there are a number of different arguments on the meaning of theos. Going to a lexicon won't get you too far in this subject.

And I suggest you go to school and study Greek before trying to correct someone who has studied it, instead of just cutting and pasting pieces of various discussions, which you do not appear to understand. FYI I learned to speak Greek in Germany, the year of Sputnik I, when Elvis and I were stationed there. And I will go with the consensus of the early church fathers, rather than a lot of modern scholars, I KNOW they spoke Greek. People like Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John for example.

Reasonable

August 5th 2003, 11:00 AM

Again, take up with the scholars. If you know more than F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris, who am I to argue? And yes, Bruce said "probably" because he realizes all of the issues invovled with the text. Something you're painfully ignorant of. I don't have to be an expert on it, I just look and see what the experts say. It's obvious you are not an expert as I've already seen the quality of your research. It amazes me that you act like you know more than the likes of Barclay, Bruce and Harris. You've stuck your foot in your mouth enough times with this discussion alone that I'm gonna stop before you embarass yourself some more.

To quote the words of a grump ole man, "Get outta my face."

Adios

OldShepherd

August 5th 2003, 08:27 PM

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167493#post167493)
Reasonable:

Again, take up with the scholars. If you know more than F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris, who am I to argue? And yes, Bruce said "probably" because he realizes all of the issues invovled with the text.

Oh now you are a mind reader and know why a certain scholar wrote what he did? Do you do card tricks too? I'm thinking of a card, which one is it?

Something you're painfully ignorant of.

The only ignorance here is yours. You know diddly about Greek. All you have done is post bits and pieces of discussions which you don't even seem to understand. For example, NONE of your quotes prove that a noun is an adjective. Especially when there IS a perfectly adequate adjective for divine/godlike in the Greek language.

And you still have not produced one bit of evidence for any other occurrence of Theos being an adjective, anywhere, Biblical or secular. Or any other noun for that matter. And I have asked several times. If a noun is an adjective then let's see the examples. I'm waiting.

It amazes me that you act like you know more than the likes of Barclay, Bruce and Harris. You've stuck your foot in your mouth enough times with this discussion alone that I'm gonna stop before you embarass yourself some more.

I haven't acted like I know more than anyone, I have simply pointed out how you have misunderstood/misrepresented what they said. You are the one embarrassed because your proofs do not prove what you claim they do.

Now to get this thread back on track. John was a Hebrew speaking Jew, with a Jewish, NOT Hellenistic understanding. Here are two previous posts, on this same thread, one by Socrates and one by me, citing Jewish sources which clearly show that, hundreds of years before the Christian era, Jews understood the memra, Aramaic for "word," was God and God was the memra/word. Memra/word was often used of God Himself and also distinct from God. Therefore in John's understanding the logoV, ie. memra, most certainly preexisted, was with God and was God. And memra is most certainly NOT an adjective.

07-23-2003 @ 12:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155749#post155749)
Socrates:

07-30-2003 @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162567#post162567)
OldShepherd:

And here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133936#post133936) is a post, by me, in another thread with a detailed discussion of qeoV from the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek lexicon, which you apparently do not know is abbreviated BAGD. You will note that it is much more than just the word theos with (noun) following it. Lexicons do more than just list words, they also show examples where and how the words are used. And, oh my, you will note this specifically cites John 1:1b, and says absolutely nothing about it being an adjective. Neither does the six page qeoV entry in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which you apparently do not know is abbreviated TDNT.

To quote the words of a grump ole man, "Get outta my face."

Now you can go junior. The next time you jump into a discussion, with an attitude, thinking you are going to show some one up, because you have a proof quote or two, you might want to pack a big lunch.

Ron Macy

August 5th 2003, 09:25 PM

IronMetro

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
As stated before, had "divine" been in the Apostles mind he would have most likely used theios.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe you are forgetting the concept of the play on words. John is playing with theos and not theios. There are always multiple ways to do the same thing. Using the construction with the anarthrous theos is the same thing as using theios. John is the poet, here. The anarthrous theos is a valid adjectival use and it makes no difference at all if it is never again used in the NT in this fashion. As with all poetry, it is subject to interpretation. You prefer the interpretation which suggests logos is a person. It is possible to understand it as only a personification. As we have seen, there are authorities on both sides of the argument.

Word could be a person. Word could be a personification. Can we agree that John 1 would corroborate the teaching of Jesus’ so-called pre-existence, if His pre-existence could be found clearly defined in other places in the Bible?

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The fallacy with your interpretation is that, although you recognize that Christ is a part of the "plan", you exclude Christ from being the "light" in John's prologue (vs7). Yet this does not work. Why? Read:
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I don’t exclude Jesus from being the “light” in John’s prologue. He is part of the light, but not the whole of the light. The light of John 1:7, 8 is descriptive of the whole gospel message. It is descriptive of the Words God spoke to bring creation into existence. The message of the Light is the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ. It is not John the Baptist. The Jews were asking John if He was the Messiah. Again, light being a metonymy for the Messiah, but more than just the Messiah. It represents the whole of the messages hope for the Kingdom of God from Genesis 3:15 through the Laws of Moses and on to the message of John the Baptist, himself. John simply said, he was not the Messiah. His statement does not prove the Light was a person before the birth of Jesus.

I wrote,
With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Why? You have given, IMHO, an unlikely alternative explanation, yet no reason why I should not view the text as it literally reads. Without the use of a priori assumptions, tell me why I shouldn't interpret the prologue as I do. Remember, this has little to do with Trinitarianism and everything to do with preexistence (as the JWs et al believe).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I look at the uses of language in the Bible and consider them in their natural context. Matthew 16:16 records Peter’s testimony of whom he thought Jesus was. It says, “Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."” I see no qualification for God in this passage except “living.” This passage (among many others) describes Jesus relationship with God (not just the Father) as that of a son. Sons, in their natural context, are always separate, distinct beings from their fathers. I see no reason to invent a separate kind of being with multiple personalites in order to come to the concept of trinity. The Bible doesn’t describe any being at all, let alone, God, as having multiple personalities.

Is that what you would call an a priori assumption?

I wrote,
Your statement, “John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus,” is extremely misleading.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
1.] I don't believe it's misleading in the slightest.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t see the name, Jesus, in verse 12 at all. Your statement makes it sound as if it is actually in the verse rather than an expression of your opinion. Since the name, Jesus, isn’t in the verse, I believe your statement is extremely misleading. You are reading things into the passage rather than simply accepting what is there.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
This of course, assumes that the "name" does not denote 'Jesus'. I may as well counter your argument with the fact that the 'name' of God appears nowhere in the context. Nowhere in the NT in fact.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I am not making an assumption of what name does not denote. It is you who are assuming it does denote Jesus.

Is this where you would say the word, God, in this passage and in the whole of the NT is titular rather than being used as the name of God?

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I don't believe the prologue is in "chronological order" per se. Simply read the previous verse:

vs 11 - "He came to His own, and His own did not recieve Him *. vs 12 But as many as recieved Him, to them He gave the right toi become children of God, to those who believe in His Name."

*This verse precedes vs14 i.e. the 'incarnation' as Trinitarians have it. When did this (vs11) occur?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe the context of verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God being rejected by the people of Israel. They rejected the plan God had for them. Those who accepted the plan were given the right to become children of God. Their acceptance of God’s plan is the same as believing in the name of God.

Ron

Ron Macy

August 5th 2003, 09:29 PM

Jezz,

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Metonymic or not, the fact remains that they were used in the Targums where the Hebrew refers to God, indicates that at the very least they considered the Word to have a personality of its own.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I disagree. The fact the Word of God was personified in the Targums in much the same way Wisdom is personified in Proverbs is not proof the Word of God or the presence of God is a person. Personification is not proof of personality.

Another thought to consider is whether or not the Jews actually accept God as a multi-personal being based on this understanding from the Targums or whether they still consider Him uni-personal. They could believe in God being multi-personal and still not believe in Jesus. I am guessing they see this as personification and not personality. The last time I heard, they didn’t believe God was multi-personal.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
There was no point in mentioning the Presence of the Lord or what the Jews thought of it. We were discussing the Word of the Lord and what it meant to the Jews of John's day, so that we can better understand what John meant in John 1:1. The Jewish concept of the Presence of the Lord is therefore a red herring in this context.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Red herring? No, it is proof you are not being consistent in your application of personification. You want to see the personification of Word of the Lord as a person, yet you don’t even want to think about the personification of the Presence of the Lord. If you are going to push for the personhood of the one, I think you need to be consistent and accept the personhood of the other.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Ok, I've been patient for a while now, and I've seen you make various arguments against John 1:1. I don't agree with those arguments, but I think it's time to more on and address this verse, because it is far more clear from this verse that Jesus pre-existed his birth. In fact, there are a bunch of such statements which make Jesus' pre-existence obvious - much more so than John 1:1 (which is why it puzzles me that you continue to focus on John 1:1). If you really want to demonstrate that Jesus was not pre-existent, then you've got a bit more work to do.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Please don’t give up on your patience, yet. I continue to focus on John 1 (more than just verse 1) because IronMetro and I have not finished discussing it. I am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me. I would like you to, but is your choice. I am merely presenting my beliefs in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15.

I will get to your list of verses in due time.

Ron

OldShepherd

August 5th 2003, 11:27 PM

Yesterday @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167405#post167405)
Reasonable:

Well actually, you got both the words and the book title wrong. Here's both:
________________________________________________
In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, “James is the man,” then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: “James is man”, then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)

“When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs... “John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs.” -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

___________________________________________

I have highlighted the words I was talking about. I can make the font bigger if you still have trouble seeing them. The words are so similar, identical in places, that one could be a later revision of the other. For example, see my quote from Morey's, Trinity, where yours has Theos, mine has, "(John 1:1b)" Unless somebody fudged to try to make their case stronger.

AVmetro

August 6th 2003, 04:10 AM

Reasonable, OS et al - You might want to initiate a new thread on the rendering of 'theos' in John1:1 IF it doesn't relate to the aspect of whether or not a 'person' or a 'plan' is in view in John's prologue. If it does, then proceed here. Thanks.

AVmetro

August 6th 2003, 04:13 AM

Ron Macy-

Caught your reply tonight. Check back with you tomorrow or the next day. Thanks.

Reasonable-

You made a statement earlier in this thread (or perhaps another) that caught me off guard (can't remember what it was). In any case, do you believe in the preexistence of Christ? Thanks.

-God bless-

Reasonable

August 6th 2003, 08:38 AM

Today @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=169335#post169335)
IronMetro:

Reasonable-

You made a statement earlier in this thread (or perhaps another) that caught me off guard (can't remember what it was). In any case, do you believe in the preexistence of Christ? Thanks.

-God bless-

Not sure what I said to make you think that. I've been arguing in support of the Trinity. (John 1:1, 8:58, Col 1:16, yada yada yada!)

As far as discussing anything with OS, anyone can read the past two pages of our discussion and see who has the support. It's amazing how I have the books and HE was unaware of any such argument until three days ago and yet I'M the one who misunderstands the quotes. And then attacks ME because F.F. Bruce said theos was "probably" adjectival in the verse. I'm not trying to say definitely theos is adjectival. OS said he never heard of such an argument so I showed him one. He mocks me for my one little scholar whom I follow like David Koresh (according to him). Then says the most idiotic thing I've heard about not believing Barclay on the Trinity because he's a Universalist. That mentality right there should have told me to leave him alone but I decide to show him F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris. I may have misinterpreted the other two quotes but Harris and Bruce are definitely discussing the adjectival aspect of theos. Now they're not good enough for him to admit that the possibility exists? This guy had a year or two of Greek and he knows more about the issues surrounding John 1:1 than Bruce, Barclay and Harris?

I don't really even know if I agree theos is adjectival in John 1:1 but I won't idiotically throw the possibility out when men like William Barclay, F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris think it may have validity. If he wants to be ignorant, let him be. I'm ignoring him because he repeats the same garbage over and over after I showed him scholar after scholar.

Anyway, sorry to have sidetracked this thread. Over and out.

OldShepherd

August 6th 2003, 10:36 AM

Yesterday @ 10:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=169432#post169432)
Reasonable:

Not sure what I said to make you think that. I've been arguing in support of the Trinity. (John 1:1, 8:58, Col 1:16, yada yada yada!)

As far as discussing anything with OS, anyone can read the past two pages of our discussion and see who has the support. It's amazing how I have the books and HE was unaware of any such argument until three days ago and yet I'M the one who misunderstands the quotes. And then attacks ME because F.F. Bruce said theos was "probably" adjectival in the verse. I'm not trying to say definitely theos is adjectival. OS said he never heard of such an argument so I showed him one. He mocks me for my one little scholar whom I follow like David Koresh (according to him). Then says the most idiotic thing I've heard about not believing Barclay on the Trinity because he's a Universalist. That mentality right there should have told me to leave him alone but I decide to show him F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris. I may have misinterpreted the other two quotes but Harris and Bruce are definitely discussing the adjectival aspect of theos. Now they're not good enough for him to admit that the possibility exists? This guy had a year or two of Greek and he knows more about the issues surrounding John 1:1 than Bruce, Barclay and Harris?

I don't really even know if I agree theos is adjectival in John 1:1 but I won't idiotically throw the possibility out when men like William Barclay, F.F. Bruce and Murray Harris think it may have validity. If he wants to be ignorant, let him be. I'm ignoring him because he repeats the same garbage over and over after I showed him scholar after scholar.

Anyway, sorry to have sidetracked this thread. Over and out.

Listen you self righteous lying little twit ignore me if you want to but do NOT tell lies, or talk, about me on the forum if you do ignore me or I will show you how it is done.

AVmetro

August 7th 2003, 09:46 PM

Old Shepherd and Reasonable-

I think the best route for either of you to take if you have problems with one another's character, actions, etc. is to take it to the Locker Room (http://theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&forumid=30). The forum linked was created specifically for "venting" about another member etc. This way, the discussion can continue in a friendly manner w/o unnecessary quarreling. Thanks.

AVmetro

August 7th 2003, 11:40 PM

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
As stated before, had "divine" been in the Apostles mind he would have most likely used theios.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe you are forgetting the concept of the play on words. John is playing with theos and not theios. There are always multiple ways to do the same thing. Using the construction with the anarthrous theos is the same thing as using theios. John is the poet, here. The anarthrous theos is a valid adjectival use and it makes no difference at all if it is never again used in the NT in this fashion. As with all poetry, it is subject to interpretation. You prefer the interpretation which suggests logos is a person. It is possible to understand it as only a personification. As we have seen, there are authorities on both sides of the argument.

The anarthrous qeoV also occurs in vss 6, 12, 13 and 18. Yet they are not "adjectives".

It is the fact that qeoV preceded a form of the verb "to be" plus the lack of the article that signals a 'qualitative' use, e.g. per Phillip Harner. However, Harner argues cogently that qualitative 'theos' is not the same thing as 'theios'.

>

I'm willing to simply let this aspect of the argument "go" unless you want it to continue. I'm getting out of my "area" on this one to put it shortly :cwink:.

Ron Macy:

Word could be a person. Word could be a personification. Can we agree that John 1 would corroborate the teaching of Jesus’ so-called pre-existence, if His pre-existence could be found clearly defined in other places in the Bible?

It's irrelvant as to whether Christ's "preexistence" is taught elsewhere in scripture as we're arguing Jn1. If one verse plainly states such and scripture does not tell us otherwise (and I don't believe it does), then it is perfectly appropriate to derive the belief from John's prologue alone--

Although we don't have to....

I need to make it clear that I believe Christ's preexistence in scripture to be no "secret" in the gospels or elsewhere in scripture. I also believe that some are even implicitly referent to John 1 (e.g. Phil2:6..cf..Jn1:14 et al). John 17:5 another.
See also - John 1:1, 18, 30; 3:13; 6:62; 1Cor 8:6; Col1:15-16; Heb1:2, 10-12 etc,.

Ron Macy:

No, I don’t exclude Jesus from being the “light” in John’s prologue. He is part of the light, but not the whole of the light. The light of John 1:7, 8 is descriptive of the whole gospel message.

If this is so then why is the "Light" said to be IN the logoV:

"In {Him}[logoV] was Life and that Life was the Light of men."

Drawing a parallel to 1Jn5:11 gives us a good idea of 'who' the logoV is. See also 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 which also state that the Son is the logoV keeping in mind that it was the same Apostle John who wrote all three books.

In the article I linked earlier in this thread, I demonstrated Christ's many claims to being the "Light" and "Life" and having this "Light" and "Life" IN Him. Now simply draw the parallel.

In the above you have labeled the ''Light'' as being "descriptive of the whole gospel message" (i.e. Christ, coming Kingdom, et al). Yet you have also given this meaning to the logoV. Your interpretation is inconsistent.

Ron Macy:

It is descriptive of the Words God spoke to bring creation into existence.

If you're speaking of your interpretation of the Word being the "Light" in John's prologue, then you're assuming your case in advance. If so, then you see why I inquired earlier as to whether the "Word" denoted the "literal speaking" of Genesis 1 or rather of the "plan" of YHWH as I would then use that in forming a reply.

Ron Macy:

The message of the Light is the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ. It is not John the Baptist. The Jews were asking John if He was the Messiah. Again, light being a metonymy for the Messiah, but more than just the Messiah. It represents the whole of the messages hope for the Kingdom of God from Genesis 3:15 through the Laws of Moses and on to the message of John the Baptist, himself. John simply said, he was not the Messiah. His statement does not prove the Light was a person before the birth of Jesus.

This somewhat ignores my question. I had pointed out that the "True Light" (notice the conjunction of 'True' and 'Light' to imply a titular use representative of a person) was said out of importance to not be the Baptist (vs8). I had then asked why this would be important for the inspired Apostle to make note of if a possiblity of confusing the two (i.e. the {personal} Word and the Baptist) was non-existant.

In order for John the Apostle to take such care not to allow a confusion between John the Baptist and the "True Light" necessarily entails, to me, that the logoV be a personal being. I think the context overall supports this conclusion.

Ron Macy:

I wrote,
With this in mind, I believe you are reading the personification the Apostle John intended as a person and I don’t believe you should.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Why? You have given, IMHO, an unlikely alternative explanation, yet no reason why I should not view the text as it literally reads. Without the use of a priori assumptions, tell me why I shouldn't interpret the prologue as I do. Remember, this has little to do with Trinitarianism and everything to do with preexistence (as the JWs et al believe).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I look at the uses of language in the Bible and consider them in their natural context. Matthew 16:16 records Peter’s testimony of whom he thought Jesus was. It says, “Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."” I see no qualification for God in this passage except “living.” This passage (among many others) describes Jesus relationship with God (not just the Father) as that of a son. Sons, in their natural context, are always separate, distinct beings from their fathers. I see no reason to invent a separate kind of being with multiple personalites in order to come to the concept of trinity. The Bible doesn’t describe any being at all, let alone, God, as having multiple personalities.

Is that what you would call an a priori assumption?

I'm not seeing how this is relevant if you understood what I was getting at. I view the logoV of John's prologue to denote the person of Christ. You, on the other hand, view the logoV to be a "personification" of God's 'plan'. What this means is that you have basically admitted that a "personal" description of some sort is in view. With this in mind we can agree that it could go one way or the other. Therefore, I had asked 'what' from the context necessitated that it be a "personification" over a literal "person" outside of an a priori assumption that your view is correct?

Tangent - As for Matt16:16 I believe that 'Son of God' denotes Christ's deity. See Jn5:18, 19:7 et al, so there isn't an a priori assumption in regards to this verse.

Ron Macy:

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t see the name, Jesus, in verse 12 at all. Your statement makes it sound as if it is actually in the verse rather than an expression of your opinion. Since the name, Jesus, isn’t in the verse, I believe your statement is extremely misleading. You are reading things into the passage rather than simply accepting what is there.

Honestly, IMHO, the connection between Jn1:12 and Jn3:16; 20:31 et al is patently obvious. As I believe I previously stated, one of the themes of John's prologue is "Life". You yourself have expressed your view that "Light" dealt with the 'gospel message' which necessarily concerns "eternal life' given us by the sacrifice of Christ and belief on His name.

But here is where you interpretation is becoming highly inconsistent. You have stated that the Word/Light is the "plan of God" etc,. I have pointed out that the logoV has a "name" on which to believe for eternal life (See again Jn20:31). You stated this name was the "name of God". So are you telling us that the ''plan of God'' is named 'Jehovah'? Especially given the immediate verses surrounding, I don't think this is an option.

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
This of course, assumes that the "name" does not denote 'Jesus'. I may as well counter your argument with the fact that the 'name' of God appears nowhere in the context. Nowhere in the NT in fact.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I am not making an assumption of what name does not denote. It is you who are assuming it does denote Jesus.

I simply turned your own argument around. You have insisted that I'm 'assuming' that the 'name' of the Word is "Jesus". Yet you in turn assert that the "name" is that of 'God'. You support your rebuttal of my view by pointing out that the name "Jesus" does not appear in the context under discussion. However, you may also note that there is no warrant for claiming that the "name" is that of 'God'. Where is this in the immediate context? What necessitates your view over mine? That is your 'assumption' I was pointing out.

I see the obvious connection between "believing on X name" and "therefore having eternal life". This view would have tremendous support from scripture. It does not have to say "Jesus" in order to necessitate that He be the one in view. Other examples would be Mal3:1; 4:2 which do not contain the *word* "Jesus" in their contexts. Yet we know precisely who is in view, correct?

...8<...

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I don't believe the prologue is in "chronological order" per se. Simply read the previous verse:

vs 11 - "He came to His own, and His own did not recieve Him *. vs 12 But as many as recieved Him, to them He gave the right toi become children of God, to those who believe in His Name."

*This verse precedes vs14 i.e. the 'incarnation' as Trinitarians have it. When did this (vs11) occur?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe the context of verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God being rejected by the people of Israel. They rejected the plan God had for them. Those who accepted the plan were given the right to become children of God. Their acceptance of God’s plan is the same as believing in the name of God.

Are you stating that it is necessary to accept the Mosaic Law in order to become a child of God? However, once again we see a clear parallel to John 3:16 in regards to believing on Christ and being born again as a child of God.

Remember that in the context of vss 11 and 12 we are still speaking about the "Word/Light" i.e. in your view the "gospel message" i.e. ''Christ and the coming Kingdom etc". It appears now you are arguing that it denote the "Law of God". (?)

Additionally, the "believing on {His} name" is portrayed as being a requirement in obtaining eternal life. All throughout the NT this "name" is that of Christ.

I ask again what I asked in my last post - 'Do you implement the use of the Tetragrammatron into your view of the salvic process?'

-----------------------------------

God bless you,
IM

Ron Macy

August 12th 2003, 10:45 PM

IronMetro

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Harner argues cogently that qualitative 'theos' is not the same thing as 'theios'.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
It's irrelvant as to whether Christ's "preexistence" is taught elsewhere in scripture as we're arguing Jn1. If one verse plainly states such and scripture does not tell us otherwise (and I don't believe it does), then it is perfectly appropriate to derive the belief from John's prologue alone--
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I guess the question at this point is who gets to define “plainly?” I believe you have made the point, passages of scripture are not interpreted in a vacuum (If you haven’t, I’m sure you would have.). There are other contexts to consider. How does one decide whether or not a passage is figurative or literal? Where does one start to build the teachings about God? With what assumptions do we begin? What do we or should we require the scripture to say before declaring a doctrine as taught in the Bible? Food for thought for another thread.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I need to make it clear that I believe Christ's preexistence in scripture to be no "secret" in the gospels or elsewhere in scripture.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion. There is an article by Anthony Buzzard at the following address.
http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/preexist.htm

There is a lot of information in this article about how Judaism views the idea of preexistence. I believe it can be summed up in this quote from the article.

“Preexisting purposes and personifications are all part of the literature of Judaism. A preexistent, non-human Messiah is not.”

I wrote,
No, I don’t exclude Jesus from being the “light” in John’s prologue. He is part of the light, but not the whole of the light. The light of John 1:7, 8 is descriptive of the whole gospel message.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
If this is so then why is the "Light" said to be IN the logoV:

"In {Him}[logoV] was Life and that Life was the Light of men."
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I have puzzled over your question and I don’t understand it. I would paraphrase John 1:4 as:
In the logos (God’s plan for the salvation of men) was life, and the life was the light of men.

You seem to be making the following conclusion: Therefore the light of men was in the logos (God’s plan for the salvation of men).

Am I understanding your conclusion correctly?
If so, are you saying life cannot be in the logos and the logos be in the light and light be in logos? Are you seeing an impossible circle here?
If so, are you interpreting my thought by saying “since the life is in the logos, the logos cannot be in the life?” Is that the inconsistency you mention?

I wrote,
The message of the Light is the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ. It is not John the Baptist. The Jews were asking John if He was the Messiah. Again, light being a metonymy for the Messiah, but more than just the Messiah. It represents the whole of the messages hope for the Kingdom of God from Genesis 3:15 through the Laws of Moses and on to the message of John the Baptist, himself. John simply said, he was not the Messiah. His statement does not prove the Light was a person before the birth of Jesus.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
This somewhat ignores my question. I had pointed out that the "True Light" (notice the conjunction of 'True' and 'Light' to imply a titular use representative of a person) was said out of importance to not be the Baptist (vs8). I had then asked why this would be important for the inspired Apostle to make note of if a possiblity of confusing the two (i.e. the {personal} Word and the Baptist) was non-existant.

In order for John the Apostle to take such care not to allow a confusion between John the Baptist and the "True Light" necessarily entails, to me, that the logoV be a personal being. I think the context overall supports this conclusion.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I am sorry, I thought my words were clear. Obviously, not. “True Light” may “imply a titular use representative of a person,” but implications are not statements. I don’t believe implications should be the foundation for doctrines.

I intended to say the “true light” refers to the whole of the gospel message, the Kingdom of God and Jesus the Messiah. I suggest the Jews recognized the two parts of the message and asked John if he was the part of the message which related to the Messiah. John said he was not the Messiah. There is nothing in what John the Baptist said which would prove the light/word/life was a person before Jesus was born. John the Apostle’s clarity in his statement doesn’t require the light/word/life to be a person before before the birth of Jesus, either.

To me it is an emphasis of how much was in the plan of God before creation ever began. God had the Messiah in mind when He created. Simply knowing Jesus was going to exist does not necessitate Jesus being a person before the creation.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I'm not seeing how this is relevant if you understood what I was getting at. I view the logoV of John's prologue to denote the person of Christ. You, on the other hand, view the logoV to be a "personification" of God's 'plan'. What this means is that you have basically admitted that a "personal" description of some sort is in view. With this in mind we can agree that it could go one way or the other. Therefore, I had asked 'what' from the context necessitated that it be a "personification" over a literal "person" outside of an a priori assumption that your view is correct?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

The context I see is a word, logos, which is being used in the same sense as wisdom in Proverbs 8. Wisdom doesn’t have its own personality. Logos doesn’t have its own personality. There is no reason to believe logos is a person from the start. I believe it is you who must provide a reason to believe it is a person and not a personification. It should be obvious I don’t believe you have proven logos is a person before it is applied to Jesus at His birth.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Tangent - As for Matt16:16 I believe that 'Son of God' denotes Christ's deity. See Jn5:18, 19:7 et al, so there isn't an a priori assumption in regards to this verse.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Yes, it is a tangent for another thread. What do you make of the Jews who claimed God as their Father in John 8:41. Were they making claims of equality with God? I don’t believe being the Son of God is a statement of deity. John 5:18 is a false accusation which Jesus refuted in verses 19 - 32. Is it your preference to believe the teachings of the Jewish leaders over what Jesus Himself taught? You might consider the warning of Jesus in Matthew 16:6 and 12.

Another thread.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
But here is where you interpretation is becoming highly inconsistent. You have stated that the Word/Light is the "plan of God" etc,. I have pointed out that the logoV has a "name" on which to believe for eternal life (See again Jn20:31). You stated this name was the "name of God". So are you telling us that the ''plan of God'' is named 'Jehovah'? Especially given the immediate verses surrounding, I don't think this is an option.

and

I simply turned your own argument around. You have insisted that I'm 'assuming' that the 'name' of the Word is "Jesus". Yet you in turn assert that the "name" is that of 'God'. You support your rebuttal of my view by pointing out that the name "Jesus" does not appear in the context under discussion. However, you may also note that there is no warrant for claiming that the "name" is that of 'God'. Where is this in the immediate context? What necessitates your view over mine? That is your 'assumption' I was pointing out.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

The only ones named in John 1:1-13 are God (I guess I am assuming God in this passage is not intended to be titular) and John the Baptist. Whose name do you think I should consider believing on between the two. Joel 2:32 tells me, “…whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered.” The thoughts of God, the plans of God, are God’s. If I wanted to call those thoughts, Jehovah, what would be wrong with it?

I also understand Acts 4:1-12 points to the name of Jesus being the only name given for the salvation of men. Yet it is God who draws men to Jesus (John 6:44). One who believes in God, but doesn’t know Jesus, will be drawn to Jesus in some fashion. It is God who originated the salvation process. Jesus surrendered Himself to God to die on the cross as our sacrifice for sin. It is through Jesus’ sacrirfice we receive the forgiveness of sins. The ultimate goal of this process is spending eternity with God in His Kingdom.

I wrote,
I believe the context of verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God being rejected by the people of Israel. They rejected the plan God had for them. Those who accepted the plan were given the right to become children of God. Their acceptance of God’s plan is the same as believing in the name of God.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Are you stating that it is necessary to accept the Mosaic Law in order to become a child of God? However, once again we see a clear parallel to John 3:16 in regards to believing on Christ and being born again as a child of God.

and

Remember that in the context of vss 11 and 12 we are still speaking about the "Word/Light" i.e. in your view the "gospel message" i.e. ''Christ and the coming Kingdom etc". It appears now you are arguing that it denote the "Law of God". (?)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I am not a saying it is necessary to observe the Law of Moses in order to become a child of God. I commend you for attempting the argument, though.

You do understand the whole of the Law of Moses pointed in one way or another to the sacrifice Jesus made for us don't you? Remember, too, Jesus said He didn’t come to do away with the Law of Moses, but to fulfill or complete it. I don’t believe we will ever come close to understanding all God has envisioned for us without an understanding of the Law of Moses.

Ron

AVmetro

August 14th 2003, 10:30 PM

Sorry I didn't acknowledge your reply earlier. I've only been on scarcely the past few days and I didn't catch it (or an email notification for that matter :huh:). I'll get back with you this weekend. Thanks :cwink:.

-God bless-

OldShepherd

August 16th 2003, 05:38 AM

08-13-2003 @ 12:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=181583#post181583)
Ron Macy:

As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion. There is an article by Anthony Buzzard at the following address.
http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/preexist.htm

There is a lot of information in this article about how Judaism views the idea of preexistence. I believe it can be summed up in this quote from the article.

“Preexisting purposes and personifications are all part of the literature of Judaism. A preexistent, non-human Messiah is not.”

Ron

This is the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" Buzzard is not an authority on Judaism and he doesn't quote any authorities on Judaism or Jewish literature, so his opinion on whether or not, "A preexistent, non-human Messiah is not part of the literature of Judaism." is no more valid than any man on the street. Just because someone wrote it in a book does not make it true.

AVmetro

August 19th 2003, 04:21 AM

Was your last post intended to be in this thread? I don't remember seeing Seag's post on that topic in this thread but I, of course, may be wrong.

Ron Macy stated:

It has also been mentioned that appealing to authorities is a logical fallacy.

Not necessarily. See here (http://www.tektonics.org/logical_fallacies.html#150). However, as you pointed out, that doesn't mean you can't disagree with the authority they cite even if who they cited is qualified.

God bless

AVmetro

August 19th 2003, 04:37 AM

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Harner argues cogently that qualitative 'theos' is not the same thing as 'theios'.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <> John > Chapter 1 > Verse 1 > Grammatical Analysis > Phillip Harner

The reference given in the bibliography:

"Harner, Phillip B. 1973. "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, pp. 75-87."

As you may already know, OS has initiated a thread where discussion of the topic would be more appropriate here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8670).

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I need to make it clear that I believe Christ's preexistence in scripture to be no "secret" in the gospels or elsewhere in scripture.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion.

My point in context being, that although I do not find it necessary for Christ's preexistence to be taught "everywhere" in order for one passage to clearly teach such I did not want you to understand that statement as an admission that this is the only passage that states such. I was more pointing to my desire to keep the discussion on John1 and it's context for now before heading off into other passages (unless of course that's your wish).

Ron Macy stated:

There is an article by Anthony Buzzard at the following address.
<http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/preexist.htm>

I find it odd that in my correspondence with Cal_Minian and TSmith regarding John8:58 they seemed to imply otherwise. I.e. that the Messiah in Jewish thought was in fact to preexist and this was their "charge" in Jn8:58.

..and..

Ron Macy stated:

There is a lot of information in this article about how Judaism views the idea of preexistence. I believe it can be summed up in this quote from the article.

“Preexisting purposes and personifications are all part of the literature of Judaism. A preexistent, non-human Messiah is not.”

...I don't disagree per se. For example, see Rev13:8. However, certain contexts, I believe, demand that it be a literal preexistence or a preexistence in the "plan'' or ''thought'' of YHWH. In the case of John 1 I choose the former for several reasons given previously. E.g. the use of "dia" with the genitive in regards to the logoV and the creation of Genesis 1 (Cf..Heb1:10-12 et al). Here the creation is not something "to happen in the future but spoken of as if already fulfilled" but something which was in fact an act of the past carried out by the logoV. This demands that the logoV 'preexist' in the utmost literal sense of the word.

Ron Macy:

I wrote,
No, I don’t exclude Jesus from being the “light” in John’s prologue. He is part of the light, but not the whole of the light. The light of John 1:7, 8 is descriptive of the whole gospel message.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
If this is so then why is the "Light" said to be IN the logoV:

"In {Him}[logoV] was Life and that Life was the Light of men."
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I have puzzled over your question and I don’t understand it. I would paraphrase John 1:4 as:
In the logos (God’s plan for the salvation of men) was life, and the life was the light of men.

You seem to be making the following conclusion: Therefore the light of men was in the logos (God’s plan for the salvation of men).

Am I understanding your conclusion correctly?
If so, are you saying life cannot be in the logos and the logos be in the light and light be in logos? Are you seeing an impossible circle here?
If so, are you interpreting my thought by saying “since the life is in the logos, the logos cannot be in the life?”

I think you've missed my point. In the prologue of John in vs4, the "Life" and the "Light" are equated and are essentially the same thing i.e. "the Life was the Light of men". This 'Life/Light' is said to be IN the Logos. The inconsistency pointed to was only applicable in your view..not mine. Here's what I mean. Unless there is a nuance in your position I missed, you stated that the Logos is the "plan of salvation of men". Earlier you implied and later in the same post you stated:

"I intended to say the “true light” refers to the whole of the gospel message, the Kingdom of God and Jesus the Messiah."

So the idea I'm seeing conveyed is that the Logos = "the whole of the gospel message" and the 'Light' = "the whole of the gospel message". The key word here in your interpretation is "whole". When I pointed out that the "Life/Light" was IN the "Logos" it entails that the "Life/Light" merely be a part of the "whole of the gospel message" rather than THE "whole" of it in and of itself. Does that help? There is a dichotomy in view.

If you intended rather that the Light be a "part of" the "whole" (i.e. the Logos) then I'll implement that factor into any coming responses and this area of the discussion will end.

As concerning my own view, I had previously stated:

"In the article I linked earlier in this thread, I demonstrated Christ's many claims to being the "Light" and "Life" and having this "Light" and "Life" IN Him. Now simply draw the parallel."

..so there is a dichotomy as far as my view is concerned which reflects what is said in scripture elsewhere.

Ron Macy stated:

Is that the inconsistency you mention?

From my last post:

"In the above you have labeled the ''Light'' as being "descriptive of the whole gospel message" (i.e. Christ, coming Kingdom, et al). Yet you have also given this meaning to the logoV. Your interpretation is inconsistent."

Ron Macy stated:

I wrote,
The message of the Light is the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ. It is not John the Baptist. The Jews were asking John if He was the Messiah. Again, light being a metonymy for the Messiah, but more than just the Messiah. It represents the whole of the messages hope for the Kingdom of God from Genesis 3:15 through the Laws of Moses and on to the message of John the Baptist, himself. John simply said, he was not the Messiah. His statement does not prove the Light was a person before the birth of Jesus.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
This somewhat ignores my question. I had pointed out that the "True Light" (notice the conjunction of 'True' and 'Light' to imply a titular use representative of a person) was said out of importance to not be the Baptist (vs8). I had then asked why this would be important for the inspired Apostle to make note of if a possiblity of confusing the two (i.e. the {personal} Word and the Baptist) was non-existant.

In order for John the Apostle to take such care not to allow a confusion between John the Baptist and the "True Light" necessarily entails, to me, that the logoV be a personal being. I think the context overall supports this conclusion.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I am sorry, I thought my words were clear. Obviously, not. “True Light” may “imply a titular use representative of a person,” but implications are not statements. I don’t believe implications should be the foundation for doctrines.

I intended to say the “true light” refers to the whole of the gospel message, the Kingdom of God and Jesus the Messiah. I suggest the Jews recognized the two parts of the message and asked John if he was the part of the message which related to the Messiah. John said he was not the Messiah. There is nothing in what John the Baptist said which would prove the light/word/life was a person before Jesus was born. John the Apostle’s clarity in his statement doesn’t require the light/word/life to be a person before before the birth of Jesus, either.

I understand what you are getting across. But I believe that in context, the 'Light' refers explicitly to the person of Christ and my reasons for believing so convey just that idea.
I reiterate; My emphasis does not rest on vss19-20 but on vss 7-8 which are then to be referenced to vss19-20 to get who is in view in the former. As I had stated before, my point rests on why the Apostle John would feel the need to distinguish between John the Baptist and the 'Light' in vss7-8 if a *person* is not in view. The 'Light' may not be representitive of just a person as I had agreed that the 'Messiah' necessarily entails the Kingdom etc. I simply feel as if the primary emphasis should be placed on the, as you put it, "Messiah part" (and of course my view holds that the physical person of the Messiah is in view). So as long as we agree that the "Light" denote Christ in some way the argument on this point will only be circular due to...

Ron Macy stated:

To me it is an emphasis of how much was in the plan of God before creation ever began. God had the Messiah in mind when He created. Simply knowing Jesus was going to exist does not necessitate Jesus being a person before the creation.

...this point, as it does not necessitate that He not. Now you understand why I needed you to make it clear as to whether or not you held the logoV to denote the "literal spoken word" of Gen1 i.e. "God said..." or more like a "plan of God's coming Messiah and Kingdom". The latter evidently being your view. A 'literal word' would not fit in light of my argument that John is making absolutely certain not to confuse the person of the Baptist and the person of Christ.

Now as to 'preexistence' being necessitated or not - I feel the context clues us to which it is. In addition to my other arguments given earlier, the fact that creation is said to have been wrought through the 'Word/Life/Light' adds considerable weight to the view that John's prologue speaks of the person of Christ rather than a "plan" yet to be manifested. Such an explanation would be nonsensical as we are speaking of an active intermediate agent in the creation process. See also vs11 and the point is further solidified.

Ron Macy:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I'm not seeing how this is relevant if you understood what I was getting at. I view the logoV of John's prologue to denote the person of Christ. You, on the other hand, view the logoV to be a "personification" of God's 'plan'. What this means is that you have basically admitted that a "personal" description of some sort is in view. With this in mind we can agree that it could go one way or the other. Therefore, I had asked 'what' from the context necessitated that it be a "personification" over a literal "person" outside of an a priori assumption that your view is correct?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

The context I see is a word, logos, which is being used in the same sense as wisdom in Proverbs 8. Wisdom doesn’t have its own personality. Logos doesn’t have its own personality. There is no reason to believe logos is a person from the start. I believe it is you who must provide a reason to believe it is a person and not a personification. It should be obvious I don’t believe you have proven logos is a person before it is applied to Jesus at His birth.

Given your last post, I'm not too sure the issue is ''person''/''personification'' anymore but rather portraying a person and simply speaking "about" that person within a plan. Hence your response to my inquiry concerning John the Baptist. I.e. the potential for confusion is not between the person of the Baptist and "Light" personified" but of the person of the Baptist and the person of Christ as it relates to a 'plan'.

I've given my reasons for holding to Christ's preexistence. I had asked what, from the context, necessitated your view as to further the argument. Are you not able to provide such? I've taken the burden but it would help to have something to argue against as well.

Now as for Prov8:

Many Trinitarians as well as all JWs hold Prov8 to be typological of Christ. If you have read J.P. Holding's article on Christ as 'God's Wisdom' you'll get a good overview. For example see 1Cor1:24 etc. Prov8 may not BE Christ per se but it is held to be typological OF Christ by many which, if true, would demonstrate a state of preexistence.

For example:

Pro 8:29-30 - "...when He gave to the sea its limit, that the waters should not pass
beyond His command; when He decreed the foundations of the earth, then I was at
His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before
Him at every time..." [LITV]

..cf..

Joh 1:2-3 - "He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being
through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come
into being." [LITV]

...and the list of parallels to Wisdom go on...

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Tangent - As for Matt16:16 I believe that 'Son of God' denotes Christ's deity. See Jn5:18, 19:7 et al, so there isn't an a priori assumption in regards to this verse.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Yes, it is a tangent for another thread. What do you make of the Jews who claimed God as their Father in John 8:41. Were they making claims of equality with God? I don’t believe being the Son of God is a statement of deity. John 5:18 is a false accusation which Jesus refuted in verses 19 - 32. Is it your preference to believe the teachings of the Jewish leaders over what Jesus Himself taught? You might consider the warning of Jesus in Matthew 16:6 and 12.

Another thread.

Okay. I'll provide the link in this thread later on.

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
But here is where you interpretation is becoming highly inconsistent. You have stated that the Word/Light is the "plan of God" etc,. I have pointed out that the logoV has a "name" on which to believe for eternal life (See again Jn20:31). You stated this name was the "name of God". So are you telling us that the ''plan of God'' is named 'Jehovah'? Especially given the immediate verses surrounding, I don't think this is an option.

and

I simply turned your own argument around. You have insisted that I'm 'assuming' that the 'name' of the Word is "Jesus". Yet you in turn assert that the "name" is that of 'God'. You support your rebuttal of my view by pointing out that the name "Jesus" does not appear in the context under discussion. However, you may also note that there is no warrant for claiming that the "name" is that of 'God'. Where is this in the immediate context? What necessitates your view over mine? That is your 'assumption' I was pointing out.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

The only ones named in John 1:1-13 are God (I guess I am assuming God in this passage is not intended to be titular) and John the Baptist. Whose name do you think I should consider believing on between the two.

Are you insisting that the "name" be one given earlier in the context in order to gather the 'name' given in vs12? I wouldn't consider that to be sound exegesis. Rather, I would decide from harmonization and context and not just from a list of 'names' within the context. Afterall, we also, in the context, have 'Logos', 'True Light' et al (Cf..Rev19:13).

The 'Word' is said to be with 'God' and is said to be witnessed to by John the Baptist. Those would be my reasons for a delineation. The 'Word' who is with the God is also said to be qeoV. So I have no qualms with the 'name' in vs12 being that of 'God' if that name is that of Jesus i.e. the monogenhV 'God'.

You go on to say....

Ron Macy:

Joel 2:32 tells me, “…whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered.”

So again I ask, do you implement the Tetragrammatron into your salvic process? Can you pronounce it? See:

Rom 10:9-14 - "Because if you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth
and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one
confesses unto salvation. For the Scripture says, "Everyone believing on Him will
not be put to shame." For there is no difference both of Jew and of Greek, for the same
Lord of all is rich toward all the ones calling on Him. For everyone, "whoever
may call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Cf..Acts4:1-12

From the context of it's citation in the NT, it is clear that it is the Lord Jesus Chris
who is in view. The one who is the fulfillment of the passage so to speak.

Ron Macy stated:

The thoughts of God, the plans of God, are God’s. If I wanted to call those thoughts, Jehovah, what would be wrong with it?

Other than the fact that it is wishful thinking, on account of the context. You have stated your position that the logoV in this instance is the 'Mosaic Law'. Believeing on the 'name' of something is equvalent to believing on the person themself. Let's take the passage as you interpret it:

"{The Law} came to {it's} own and {it's} own did not recieve {it}. But as many as received {the Law}, to them {it} gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in {the Law}'s name who were BORN, not of blood nor of the will of man, but of God."

As it reads normally:

"He came to His own and his own did not recieve Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name who were born, not of blood nor of the will of man, but of God."

So despite the patently clear allusions to Jn3:16; 19:15 et al, you have held to an interpretation which demands an emphasized belief on the Mosaic Law in order to obtain salvation.

Ron Macy stated:

I also understand Acts 4:1-12 points to the name of Jesus being the only name given for the salvation of men.

Which proves the point above.

Ron Macy stated:

Yet it is God who draws men to Jesus (John 6:44). One who believes in God, but doesn’t know Jesus, will be drawn to Jesus in some fashion. It is God who originated the salvation process. Jesus surrendered Himself to God to die on the cross as our sacrifice for sin. It is through Jesus’ sacrirfice we receive the forgiveness of sins. The ultimate goal of this process is spending eternity with God in His Kingdom.

Certainly. But what does this prove? Christ states that no man can come to the Father unless they go first through Him. How do we go through Him? By believing on His name (See Jn3:16; 20:31 etc.).

Ron Macy:

I wrote,
I believe the context of verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God being rejected by the people of Israel. They rejected the plan God had for them. Those who accepted the plan were given the right to become children of God. Their acceptance of God’s plan is the same as believing in the name of God.

You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Are you stating that it is necessary to accept the Mosaic Law in order to become a child of God? However, once again we see a clear parallel to John 3:16 in regards to believing on Christ and being born again as a child of God.

and

Remember that in the context of vss 11 and 12 we are still speaking about the "Word/Light" i.e. in your view the "gospel message" i.e. ''Christ and the coming Kingdom etc". It appears now you are arguing that it denote the "Law of God". (?)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I am not a saying it is necessary to observe the Law of Moses in order to become a child of God. I commend you for attempting the argument, though.

Yet that is precisely what vs11-12 are concerned with i.e. the 'giving' of eternal life, and precisely what you must accept if you insert "Law of Moses" into the context. It clearly states that believing on {"it"} will result in the rebirth of the fallen sinner. We are clearly speaking of a salvic process not merely the pointing to of the salvic process.

Ron Macy stated:

You do understand the whole of the Law of Moses pointed in one way or another to the sacrifice Jesus made for us don't you? Remember, too, Jesus said He didn’t come to do away with the Law of Moses, but to fulfill or complete it. I don’t believe we will ever come close to understanding all God has envisioned for us without an understanding of the Law of Moses.

See above.

This brings me to my observation of the inconsistency or perhaps just undefined nature of your view. You have first stated that the logoV is simply the "plan of God" 'personified'. In vs7 and so forth you have asserted that it is the "person of Christ" yet only as He appears in the 'plan of God' (this to me is not a 'personification' but a personal reference that does not necessitate preex, am I correct?). Lastly, you have labeled the logoV as denoting the 'Law of Moses' which the Israelites rejected. Am I correct in all of the above?

God bless

Ron Macy

August 19th 2003, 07:07 PM

IronMetro,

You are very correct. That post was supposed to be on

Trinity Defined - for clarification in discussion here at TW

Is there any way to move it?

Thanks,
Ron

AVmetro

August 21st 2003, 10:02 PM

08-19-2003 @ 06:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=190015#post190015)
Ron Macy:

IronMetro,

You are very correct. That post was supposed to be on

Trinity Defined - for clarification in discussion here at TW

Is there any way to move it?

Thanks,
Ron

Sorry I'm late in replying to this. I moved the post (late! :doh:) but I see you've already posted it. I deleted what I moved. Thanks.

Ron Macy

August 21st 2003, 10:08 PM

IronMetro

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I did not want you to understand that statement as an admission that this is the only passage that states such. I was more pointing to my desire to keep the discussion on John1 and it's context for now before heading off into other passages (unless of course that's your wish).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
For example, see Rev13:8. However, certain contexts, I believe, demand that it be a literal preexistence or a preexistence in the "plan'' or ''thought'' of YHWH. In the case of John 1 I choose the former for several reasons given previously. E.g. the use of "dia" with the genitive in regards to the logos and the creation of Genesis 1 (Cf..Heb1:10-12 et al). Here the creation is not something "to happen in the future but spoken of as if already fulfilled" but something which was in fact an act of the past carried out by the logos. This demands that the logos 'preexist' in the utmost literal sense of the word.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Explain to me how the use of the genitive in John 1 requires a person and cannot be personification. I am guessing it is perfectly reasonable with personification.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
So the idea I'm seeing conveyed is that the Logos = "the whole of the gospel message" and the 'Light' = "the whole of the gospel message". The key word here in your interpretation is "whole". When I pointed out that the "Life/Light" was IN the "Logos" it entails that the "Life/Light" merely be a part of the "whole of the gospel message" rather than THE "whole" of it in and of itself. Does that help? There is a dichotomy in view.

and

"In the above you have labeled the ''Light'' as being "descriptive of the whole gospel message" (i.e. Christ, coming Kingdom, et al). Yet you have also given this meaning to the logos. Your interpretation is inconsistent."
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I don't see a dichotomy here. I don't see inconsistency. I see a marvelous attempt to create confusion where there really is none. I have done the same thing my self at times.

I believe this is simply speaking of the inter-related nature of the words. Light, life, and logos all are words which can be used to describe the same picture, God's plan to bring eternal life to mankind in the Kingdom of God. One is not part of the other, they are ways of describing the same thing differently. It is a very Hebrew way of writing.

Let me give an example. The same word for in, en, is used in John 17:21. "that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me."

I believe Jesus is speaking of the unity He has with God and with all believers. Jesus says He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. By your reasoning, Jesus would be introducing the same dichotomy you believe I have introduced. You are saying if Jesus is in the Father, then He is a part of the Father and since He is a part of the Father, the Father couldn't be a part of Jesus.

I don't believe there is any dichotomy in the words of Jesus and I don't believe I have introduced a dichotomy, either.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Now you understand why I needed you to make it clear as to whether or not you held the logos to denote the "literal spoken word" of Gen1 i.e. "God said..." or more like a "plan of God's coming Messiah and Kingdom". The latter evidently being your view. A 'literal word' would not fit in light of my argument that John is making absolutely certain not to confuse the person of the Baptist and the person of Christ.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Now as to 'preexistence' being necessitated or not - I feel the context clues us to which it is. In addition to my other arguments given earlier, the fact that creation is said to have been wrought through the 'Word/Life/Light' adds considerable weight to the view that John's prologue speaks of the person of Christ rather than a "plan" yet to be manifested. Such an explanation would be nonsensical as we are speaking of an active intermediate agent in the creation process.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Do you believe the creation could have been completed without a plan? Or that God would have created without a plan? I believe God had the end in view from the beginning, from before the beginning of creation. This means He had the Messiah in view as well as the ultimate Kingdom of God. I believe this is all the agency necessary.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I've given my reasons for holding to Christ's preexistence. I had asked what, from the context, necessitated your view as to further the argument. Are you not able to provide such? I've taken the burden but it would help to have something to argue against as well.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I am not sure what more I can say to state my position for argument. I don't believe the logos is a person until verse 14. I have repeated, before verse 14, logos was personified and is not a person. If you don't believe that is enough against which to argue, maybe there really is no argument against my position. That would surprise me greatly.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Are you insisting that the "name" be one given earlier in the context in order to gather the 'name' given in vs12? I wouldn't consider that to be sound exegesis. Rather, I would decide from harmonization and context and not just from a list of 'names' within the context. Afterall, we also, in the context, have 'Logos', 'True Light' et al (Cf..Rev19:13).

The 'Word' is said to be with 'God' and is said to be witnessed to by John the Baptist. Those would be my reasons for a delineation. The 'Word' who is with the God is also said to be logos. So I have no qualms with the 'name' in vs12 being that of 'God' if that name is that of Jesus i.e. the monogenes 'God'.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Usually, one looks to the antecedents of a pronoun or in this case "name" to determine to whom it refers. I would consider that sound exegesis. You have yet to prove 'Logos' and 'True Light' are names in this context. Your reference to Revelation 19:13 is certainly a valid reference to Jesus. Please notice, this reference takes place chronologically after John 1:14.

God's name is not Jesus. If you have a scripture in mind which clearly states God's name to be Jesus, I would be glad to consider it.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Other than the fact that it is wishful thinking, on account of the context. You have stated your position that the logos in this instance is the 'Mosaic Law'. Believeing on the 'name' of something is equvalent to believing on the person themself. Let's take the passage as you interpret it:

and

Yet that is precisely what vs11-12 are concerned with i.e. the 'giving' of eternal life, and precisely what you must accept if you insert "Law of Moses" into the context. It clearly states that believing on {"it"} will result in the rebirth of the fallen sinner. We are clearly speaking of a salvic process not merely the pointing to of the salvic process.

and

Lastly, you have labeled the logos as denoting the 'Law of Moses' which the Israelites rejected. Am I correct in all of the above?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, you need to go back and review what I wrote about the Mosaic Law.

I wrote,
= = = =
You do understand the whole of the Law of Moses pointed in one way or another to the sacrifice Jesus made for us don't you? Remember, too, Jesus said He didn't come to do away with the Law of Moses, but to fulfill or complete it. I don't believe we will ever come close to understanding all God has envisioned for us without an understanding of the Law of Moses.
= = = =

I didn't say logos was the Mosaic Law. I will agree the Mosaic Law is part of the logos. You are misquoting me, though. Therefore, your paraphrase of John 1:12 is an attempt to attribute to me things I never wrote.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
This brings me to my observation of the inconsistency or perhaps just undefined nature of your view. You have first stated that the logos is simply the "plan of God" 'personified'. In vs7 and so forth you have asserted that it is the "person of Christ" yet only as He appears in the 'plan of God' (this to me is not a 'personification' but a personal reference that does not necessitate preex, am I correct?).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

"This to me is not a 'personification' but a personal reference that does not necessitate preex."

This is an interesting thought. I will have to consider it before I can answer your question.

I continue to look forward to hearing from you.
Ron

Jezz

August 25th 2003, 04:37 AM

Ron Macy:
God's name is not Jesus. If you have a scripture in mind which clearly states God's name to be Jesus, I would be glad to consider it.
Hey Ron,

Sorry I have not kept up with this exchange, but you and IronMetro seem to be having a good discussion, so I just thought I'd pick on this point here.

The statement "God's name is not Jesus" is kinda accurate, because of course God has many names. But how about if I could show you a verse that didn't actually say that God's name was Jesus, but rather said that God was Jesus, or that God is become Jesus? Would that be a satisfactory verse for you?

Ron Macy

August 25th 2003, 09:48 PM

IronMetro

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Sorry I'm late in replying to this. I moved the post (late! :doh:) but I see you've already posted it. I deleted what I moved. Thanks.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Life certainly does get full at times. There is a lot if life (and sometimes death) going on away from discussion boards. I know I don’t always have the time to check in on what is happening.

Thanks for your effort, anyway.

Ron

Ron Macy

August 25th 2003, 09:49 PM

Jezz

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Sorry I have not kept up with this exchange, but you and IronMetro seem to be having a good discussion, so I just thought I'd pick on this point here.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I agree, I think the discussion has gone quite well. It is a wonderful thing to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I know I can be disagreeable at times, but IronMetro has put up with me so far without being disagreeable in return.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The statement "God's name is not Jesus" is kinda accurate, because of course God has many names. But how about if I could show you a verse that didn't actually say that God's name was Jesus, but rather said that God was Jesus, or that God is become Jesus? Would that be a satisfactory verse for you?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Feel free to give it your best shot, but understand we might have differing understandings about what is being said in the passages you offer.

Ron

Jezz

August 26th 2003, 03:34 AM

Ron Macy:
You wrote,
The statement "God's name is not Jesus" is kinda accurate, because of course God has many names. But how about if I could show you a verse that didn't actually say that God's name was Jesus, but rather said that God was Jesus, or that God is become Jesus? Would that be a satisfactory verse for you?

Feel free to give it your best shot, but understand we might have differing understandings about what is being said in the passages you offer.
So even if a passage in the Bible said "God is become Jesus" or "YHWH is become Jesus", you wouldn't believe that YHWH became Jesus??? Let me ask you another question then: What would you expect to see written in the Bible, if God did become Jesus???

I think this is a fair question to ask, because until you answer it you always have a "passage of retreat". Whenever someone produces a Biblical passage to contradict your position, you can explain it away as being a metaphor or not intended to be taken literally. In other words, there's nothing that could possibly sway you from your position, which makes your belief unfalsifiable.

In order to combat this, I'm going to ask that you at least give us a goal that we can aim at here... tell us what kind of scripture passage would change your mind?

I think this is a useful exercise from an introspective point of view, too, in helping a person understand why they believe what they believe - instead of dogmatically believing it. This goes for people of all beliefs (including we trinitarians).

AVmetro

August 27th 2003, 07:32 PM

Sorry for the wait. Been a busy week :cwink:

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

Explain to me how the use of the genitive in John 1 requires a person and cannot be personification. I am guessing it is perfectly reasonable with personification.

In corresponding with Unitarians of your presuasion, a common argument I have seen in regards to vss1-3 when it comes to "all things being created through {'it'}" is that the Greek word "dia" can simply mean "on account of" i.e.

"All things were created {on account of} {'it'}..."

I simply assumed that was your argument. My reply was based on the fact that "dia" when used with the genitive is more accurately translated as "through" carrying the sense of "intermediate agent". See BDAG:

BDAG:
III. 1. w. gen. of the thing a) to denote means or instrument...b) to denote manner...c) denoting attendant circumstance...d) to denote efficient cause...2.w. gen. of the pers. a)denoting the personal agent or intermediary through (the agency of)...
IV. At times dia w. gen. seems to have causal mng. ...

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
So the idea I'm seeing conveyed is that the Logos = "the whole of the gospel message" and the 'Light' = "the whole of the gospel message". The key word here in your interpretation is "whole". When I pointed out that the "Life/Light" was IN the "Logos" it entails that the "Life/Light" merely be a part of the "whole of the gospel message" rather than THE "whole" of it in and of itself. Does that help? There is a dichotomy in view.

and

"In the above you have labeled the ''Light'' as being "descriptive of the whole gospel message" (i.e. Christ, coming Kingdom, et al). Yet you have also given this meaning to the logos. Your interpretation is inconsistent."
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, I don't see a dichotomy here. I don't see inconsistency. I see a marvelous attempt to create confusion where there really is none. I have done the same thing my self at times.

I believe this is simply speaking of the inter-related nature of the words. Light, life, and logos all are words which can be used to describe the same picture, God's plan to bring eternal life to mankind in the Kingdom of God. One is not part of the other, they are ways of describing the same thing differently. It is a very Hebrew way of writing.

Let me give an example. The same word for in, en, is used in John 17:21. "that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me."

I believe Jesus is speaking of the unity He has with God and with all believers. Jesus says He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. By your reasoning, Jesus would be introducing the same dichotomy you believe I have introduced. You are saying if Jesus is in the Father, then He is a part of the Father and since He is a part of the Father, the Father couldn't be a part of Jesus.

I don't believe there is any dichotomy in the words of Jesus and I don't believe I have introduced a dichotomy, either.

If I were to draw a parallel to Jn17:21, it would actually demonstrate my point in that Christ is not the Father and the Father is not Christ i.e. they are two different persons. The same was my point with the Word with the Light being [i]in it i.e. they do not denote the precise same thing. I don't believe that they could not be a "part of" one another. I simply believe they cannot both be the "whole" of the same thing, that is in this case, the entirety of the "plan of God''.

Now, had you stated that the logoV was the "whole of the plan of God" with the 'Light' being an aspect OF this plan, I would see no problem.

What would probably help me (and keep me from confusing you more :cwink:), would be for you to take each object (i.e. 'Word', 'Light', 'Life') and explain what each denotes.

Are they essentially the same thing or is there a slight nuance to each? This will help determine whether or not these applications are consistent with the overall context of John's prologue.
Thanks.

As an extra bit of information, the reason I brought up this point is on account of the fact that a Christadelphian used a similar argument against me. That is, how can Christ (the Light) be the Logos if 'He' is "in" the Logos. And of course you've seen my answer to that with the parallels drawn.

Ron Macy:

I believe logos refers to the plan of God.

Thank you.

Ron Macy stated:

Do you believe the creation could have been completed without a plan? Or that God would have created without a plan? I believe God had the end in view from the beginning, from before the beginning of creation. This means He had the Messiah in view as well as the ultimate Kingdom of God. I believe this is all the agency necessary.

I believe this interpretation would be consistent if we were speaking of "why" God created 'all things'. This was my point of noting the use of "dia" with the 'genitive'. In light of this, it brings to question the need for statements such as "All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made." Why the necessity of stating that nothing is left out as to being created by the logoV? Take the above and tie it in with scriptures such as Heb1:10-12 and one can see what is in view.

Ron Macy stated:

I am not sure what more I can say to state my position for argument. I don't believe the logos is a person until verse 14. I have repeated, before verse 14, logos was personified and is not a person. If you don't believe that is enough against which to argue, maybe there really is no argument against my position. That would surprise me greatly.

I was speaking of an argument other than that from an a priori position. What in scripture teaches that Christ did not preexist. It's difficult to argue for the 'personhood' of the logoV when the opponent is arguing for personification. But that would be putting {a} burden on you, so take it only if you choose to do so. I'm not going to attempt to 'sneak' it on you.

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Are you insisting that the "name" be one given earlier in the context in order to gather the 'name' given in vs12? I wouldn't consider that to be sound exegesis. Rather, I would decide from harmonization and context and not just from a list of 'names' within the context. Afterall, we also, in the context, have 'Logos', 'True Light' et al (Cf..Rev19:13).

The 'Word' is said to be with 'God' and is said to be witnessed to by John the Baptist. Those would be my reasons for a delineation. The 'Word' who is with the God is also said to be logos. So I have no qualms with the 'name' in vs12 being that of 'God' if that name is that of Jesus i.e. the monogenes 'God'.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Usually, one looks to the antecedents of a pronoun or in this case "name" to determine to whom it refers. I would consider that sound exegesis. You have yet to prove 'Logos' and 'True Light' are names in this context. Your reference to Revelation 19:13 is certainly a valid reference to Jesus. Please notice, this reference takes place chronologically after John 1:14.

Yet in my reply you have quoted, I explained why two of the three possible antecedents were not valid. I restate; John the Baptist came to witness to the LogoV. That eliminates that option. Earlier, the logoV is said to be with God (Cf..vs18). If we take "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' then that option is also eliminated.

As for Rev19:13 taking place after Jn1:14, what is the relevance? I would expect Christ to carry the same identity prior to, during, and after the incarnation. However, I know what you're getting at. That is the sort of argument that lead me to ask such questions as:

"In vs7 and so forth you have asserted that it is the "person of Christ" yet only as He appears in the 'plan of God' (this to me is not a 'personification' but a personal reference that does not necessitate preex, am I correct?)."

Ron Macy stated:

God's name is not Jesus. If you have a scripture in mind which clearly states God's name to be Jesus, I would be glad to consider it.

If we were arguing 'Trinitarianism', I would consider replying to the above. However, we are not arguing whether God's name is 'Jesus' but whether or not the name of the logoV is 'Jesus'. To that, I appeal to 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 which identify Christ as the logoV.

Also regarding vs14, one need simply look to the verse following immediately after (i.e. vs15) as an indicator as to which interpretation is correct.

"John bore witness of Him [the 'Word made flesh'] and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'"

The Baptist then goes on to state similar in vss 27 and 30. What does this necessitate regarding the person of Christ?

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Other than the fact that it is wishful thinking, on account of the context. You have stated your position that the logos in this instance is the 'Mosaic Law'. Believeing on the 'name' of something is equvalent to believing on the person themself. Let's take the passage as you interpret it:

and

Yet that is precisely what vs11-12 are concerned with i.e. the 'giving' of eternal life, and precisely what you must accept if you insert "Law of Moses" into the context. It clearly states that believing on {"it"} will result in the rebirth of the fallen sinner. We are clearly speaking of a salvic process not merely the pointing to of the salvic process.

and

Lastly, you have labeled the logos as denoting the 'Law of Moses' which the Israelites rejected. Am I correct in all of the above?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No, you need to go back and review what I wrote about the Mosaic Law.

I wrote,
= = = =
You do understand the whole of the Law of Moses pointed in one way or another to the sacrifice Jesus made for us don't you? Remember, too, Jesus said He didn't come to do away with the Law of Moses, but to fulfill or complete it. I don't believe we will ever come close to understanding all God has envisioned for us without an understanding of the Law of Moses.
= = = =

I don't disagree with the above, yet I don't see how it negates my view or necessitates yours (?)

I didn't say logos was the Mosaic Law. I will agree the Mosaic Law is part of the logos. You are misquoting me, though. Therefore, your paraphrase of John 1:12 is an attempt to attribute to me things I never wrote.

My motivation was not to attribute to you things you never wrote. That is simply how your argument came across in my eyes. I may have been mistaken, but in no wise did I intentionally attempt to 'misquote' you. A paraphrase of ideas, perhaps, but not an intent to misquote.

As to your above point - I see a consistency in "who" or "what" the logoV is in the context of John's prologue as far as my view is concerned. Could you clarify for me again as to "what" precisely it is that possesses this "name" on which to believe in order to recieve the gift of eternal life if not that of Jesus Christ?

I was probably confused by this statement in one of your earlier posts (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=168381#post168381):

"I believe the context of verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God being rejected by the people of Israel. They rejected the plan God had for them. Those who accepted the plan were given the right to become children of God. Their acceptance of God’s plan is the same as believing in the name of God."
To which I wanted to point out in vs17 in the same setting where the 'source' (in a sense) of 'Law' and 'Grace' are contrasted. One being dispensed through Moses, the other through Christ, the 'Word made flesh'.

But I think you may have had something more nuanced in mind when stating it (now that I read it with your last reply in mind, I can see that). Could you give me one more shot and clarify for me? Thanks.

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
This brings me to my observation of the inconsistency or perhaps just undefined nature of your view. You have first stated that the logos is simply the "plan of God" 'personified'. In vs7 and so forth you have asserted that it is the "person of Christ" yet only as He appears in the 'plan of God' (this to me is not a 'personification' but a personal reference that does not necessitate preex, am I correct?).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

"This to me is not a 'personification' but a personal reference that does not necessitate preex."

This is an interesting thought. I will have to consider it before I can answer your question.

I may need to clarify what I stated although you probably understand anyway. I was referring to how your argument in regards to vs7 came across in my mind. I wasn't stating my own personal view. Your view of vs7 is what I needed clarification on.

I continue to look forward to hearing from you.

You too. I hope to be able to express my arguments more clearly in the future. I've only been getting to my wordpad bits at a time and it's easy to lose one's train of thought ;-).

God bless

Ron Macy

August 28th 2003, 10:13 PM

Jezz and IronMetro,

I have seen your posts. It is my turn to be super busy.

I hope to be able to respond Friday night to at least Jezz.

IM, your letter will take a little longer to digest.

Ron

Ron Macy

August 30th 2003, 11:08 AM

Jezz

It's Saturday morning. I missed it by thaat much.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
So even if a passage in the Bible said "God is become Jesus" or "YHWH is become Jesus", you wouldn't believe that YHWH became Jesus??? Let me ask you another question then: What would you expect to see written in the Bible, if God did become Jesus???
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

The awkwardness of the “is become” part sticks out. Your using quote marks around the phrases suggests you are quoting from some passage of scripture. Yet, I don’t know where any such phraseology might be. No matter.

What would I expect to see written in the Bible, if God did become Jesus? I think it is a fair question, too.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I think this is a fair question to ask, because until you answer it you always have a "passage of retreat". Whenever someone produces a Biblical passage to contradict your position, you can explain it away as being a metaphor or not intended to be taken literally. In other words, there's nothing that could possibly sway you from your position, which makes your belief unfalsifiable.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

You make me sound like a trinitarian who wants God to be three and one at the same time. (Just trying to be funny. Let me know if it works!)

I can appreciate the desire for no “wiggle room.”

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
In order to combat this, I'm going to ask that you at least give us a goal that we can aim at here... tell us what kind of scripture passage would change your mind?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Based on Romans 1:20, I believe God reveals Himself through creation. I believe God made the universe in such a way as to teach what His nature is like. I believe all nature points to all beings as uni-personal; one personality each. Since nature knows no multi-personal beings, there is no reason to believe any such being can or does exist. For someone to believe the one God has more than one personality, I would need explicit scripture which says God is a multi-personal being. I would also need explicit scripture limiting the number of persons to three.

I’ll go out on a limb and say, if you can find the scripture which explicitly states God is multi-personal and the number of persons in God are three. I won’t be able to argue against the trinity.

Now, it is my turn. If you don’t produce the explicit scripture which describes God as multi-personal will you admit God may just possibly be a uni-personal being? No wiggle room.

Ron

Ron Macy

August 30th 2003, 01:57 PM

IronMetro

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
What would probably help me (and keep me from confusing you more :cwink:), would be for you to take each object (i.e. 'Word', 'Light', 'Life') and explain what each denotes.

Are they essentially the same thing or is there a slight nuance to each? This will help determine whether or not these applications are consistent with the overall context of John's prologue.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Part of what you quoted from me was this:
=> => => => => => => => =>
I believe this is simply speaking of the inter-related nature of the words. Light, life, and logos all are words which can be used to describe the same picture, God's plan to bring eternal life to mankind in the Kingdom of God. One is not part of the other, they are ways of describing the same thing differently. It is a very Hebrew way of writing.
<= <= <= <= <= <= <= <= <=

Hebrew poetry is big on parallelisms. Different phrases are used to describe the same things or to show the antithesis. In this case, I don’t believe there needs to be any nuances which distinguish word, light, and life. If I were to suggest a difference, it would be in the effect of the word on men and not differences of definition. Word could represent the thought processes of God directed toward the salvation of men and ultimately, the Kingdom of God. Light could represent the contrast of God’s thought processes with the thought processes of the world or mankind, light contrasted with dark. Life could point to the ultimate effect of the thought processes of God for mankind, God’s plan means eternal life for us. (Sounds like a sermon in there somewhere.) All three are the same thing, just viewed from a different perspective.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
As an extra bit of information, the reason I brought up this point is on account of the fact that a Christadelphian used a similar argument against me. That is, how can Christ (the Light) be the Logos if 'He' is "in" the Logos. And of course you've seen my answer to that with the parallels drawn.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Isn’t being an independent thinker wonderful? I can agree with a Christadelphian in principle, but don’t have to agree with his argumentation. It also makes it more difficult to label someone and thus dismiss everything they think. People need to be handled for what they say and not for what their associates may say. I appreciate your recognition of the differences. I hope to give you that same individuality for your thoughts.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I believe this interpretation would be consistent if we were speaking of "why" God created 'all things'. This was my point of noting the use of "dia" with the 'genitive'. In light of this, it brings to question the need for statements such as "All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made." Why the necessity of stating that nothing is left out as to being created by the logos? Take the above and tie it in with scriptures such as Heb1:10-12 and one can see what is in view.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I am not sure I understand what the genitive dia has to do with God creating the universe by His plan. The first definition you provided for dia used the phrase “of the thing.” The inanimate plan can be the means by which God created the world. It is an “efficient cause” or “instrument.” The genitive dia can point to an intermediary person, but doesn’t have to. The plan is a thing. The all inclusiveness of the creation “by” the logos is still effective.

For what it is worth, I don’t believe Hebrews 1:10-12 is speaking of Jesus. I believe it is speaking of God (uni-personal). I think the conjunction in verse 10 marks a line between what is being said about the Messiah and what is being said about God.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I was speaking of an argument other than that from an a priori position. What in scripture teaches that Christ did not preexist. It's difficult to argue for the 'personhood' of the logos when the opponent is arguing for personification. But that would be putting {a} burden on you, so take it only if you choose to do so. I'm not going to attempt to 'sneak' it on you.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe you have this backwards. The idea of any person having conscious existence before their birth is not clear in nature. By that I mean by observing the world around us there is no reason to believe anyone or anything has existed as sentient beings before their birth.

What you need to provide is clear, explicit teaching from the scripture that someone has had sentient existence before their birth. I believe you have assumed sentient existence before birth is possible without having explicit scriptures to support the idea. So, it is not I who has to prove Jesus did not preexist. It is you who must prove He did preexist. So far, you haven’t. (At least in my opinion.)

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Yet in my reply you have quoted, I explained why two of the three possible antecedents were not valid. I restate; John the Baptist came to witness to the Logos That eliminates that option. Earlier, the logos is said to be with God (Cf..vs18). If we take "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' then that option is also eliminated.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

This is really confusing. I am trying to determine which “God” in what context is a ‘personal name’ which can be eliminated.

I can’t help but recall the words of Paul (Forgive me. It is spills out sometimes.) in 1 Corinthians 14:33. “for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

If I were to look at it from what I believe is your perspective, John 1:1 would come out somewhat like this.

1b: the Word was with (one whose name is) God,
1c: and the Word was (one whose name is) God.

Yet, you are saying one of these, (one whose name is) God, is eliminated as a condender for the name in verse 12. Is it both? One or the other? Which? If it is one or the other, how can I tell the difference without making some assumptions before I come to this passage?

If we consider logos as an inanimate concept, it is indeed with God (1b). As an inaimate concept of God’s, it does have all the character traits of God (1c). But because logos isn’t a person, God is not eliminated as a contender for name in verse 12. In fact, God is the only person in view.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
My motivation was not to attribute to you things you never wrote. That is simply how your argument came across in my eyes. I may have been mistaken, but in no wise did I intentionally attempt to 'misquote' you. A paraphrase of ideas, perhaps, but not an intent to misquote.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

So you were attempting to reflect what I said in your own words. In this case, the reflection was inaccurate and required me to clarify. I can appreciate what you have done and said.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
But I think you may have had something more nuanced in mind when stating it (now that I read it with your last reply in mind, I can see that). Could you give me one more shot and clarify for me? Thanks.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

In what you quoted from me, “. . .verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God. . .,” I specifically did not capitalize ‘laws’ so as to not confuse what I was saying with the Laws of Moses. It didn’t work, did it?

The logos is the plan of God for the salvation of mankind and it’s culmination in the Kingdom of God. It is the thread of hope which runs from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15) to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:5-8; 17:5-8; etc.) to Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) to Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) to David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; 2 Chronicles 17:11:14; Psalm 22; 23; 24; 89:3-4, 26-27, 29, 36-37; 110:1-2) to Isaiah (52:13-14; 53, etc) to Jeremiah (23:5-6; 33:14-16) to Daniel (7:13-14) to Micah (5:2) and culminates in Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20 as far as the Laws of Moses is concerned).

God gave the Laws to Moses for many reasons. There were health regulations which have separated the Jews from many diseases for centuries. There were sacrifices which in one way or another have pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. Finally, there is the demand for the righteousness and holiness of the people of Israel. Paul wrote in Romans 7 about the holiness of the Law. Paul wrote in Galatians 3 about how the Law of Moses was to be a teacher to us until we recognize a single piece of information. That single piece of information is no one has obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, nor can obey the Law of Moses perfectly, and therefore, we can only throw ourselves on the mercy of God for true forgiveness, righteousness, and holiness (It is my contention there have been people from the time of Moses until Jesus who recognized this and had faith in God to make them righteous even as they were as obedient as possible to the Law.). The ultimate purpose of the Laws of Moses were to point us to the grace of God through Jesus. Jesus being the only man who has perfectly obeyed the Laws of Moses (Hebrews 4:15).

All of this is what the logos is.

I like Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 46:9-10.
"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

His words suggest to me what I have been saying. God had this plan in mind before the beginning of time. Just because God knew Jesus would exist, it doesn’t mean Jesus had a conscious existence from before the beginning of time.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I may need to clarify what I stated although you probably understand anyway. I was referring to how your argument in regards to vs7 came across in my mind. I wasn't stating my own personal view. Your view of vs7 is what I needed clarification on.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I understood you were asking the question for clarification purposes as you did above. Your statement (This to me is not a 'personification' but a personal reference that does not necessitate preex.) sounds good to me. I believe I need to consider any possible ramifications before I can say this is what I mean. So, for the time being, I’ll stick with personification.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I've only been getting to my wordpad bits at a time and it's easy to lose one's train of thought ;-).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Trust me, I know how you feel.

Until the next time,
Ron

Jezz

August 31st 2003, 10:56 AM

Ron Macy:
The awkwardness of the “is become” part sticks out.
That was "old English" style (as used in the KJV), where the auxilary "to be" was used to form the perfect tense. In many European languages (eg German or French), we would still say "is become". However, in modern English (eg the NIV), we'd say "has become" instead, which is probably why it seemed awkward.

If it makes you more comfortable, I'll use the modern English phrasing.

You wrote,
I think this is a fair question to ask, because until you answer it you always have a "passage of retreat". Whenever someone produces a Biblical passage to contradict your position, you can explain it away as being a metaphor or not intended to be taken literally. In other words, there's nothing that could possibly sway you from your position, which makes your belief unfalsifiable.

You make me sound like a trinitarian who wants God to be three and one at the same time. (Just trying to be funny. Let me know if it works!)
Hah, I appreciate the humour! (Note: smilies are a good way of indicating humour.) I also apologise because I realise that it may have seemed that my paragraph was directed at you specifically - it wasn't. I should have used the more impersonal "one" - eg "because until one answers it, one always has a passage of retreat". Leaving a passage of retreat is a tactic that most people use in debate (probably myself included!)

I can appreciate the desire for no “wiggle room.”
Cool.

Based on Romans 1:20, I believe God reveals Himself through creation. I believe God made the universe in such a way as to teach what His nature is like. I believe all nature points to all beings as uni-personal; one personality each. Since nature knows no multi-personal beings, there is no reason to believe any such being can or does exist. For someone to believe the one God has more than one personality, I would need explicit scripture which says God is a multi-personal being. I would also need explicit scripture limiting the number of persons to three.
I think it's a stretch to go from "we don't know of any multi-personal beings in nature" to "God cannot be a multi-personal being". While I agree that God is revealed in nature, I think it is a stretch to argue that this points to unitarianism just because there are no other multi-personal beings in the universe (that we know of). After all, there are no other omnipotent or omniscient or sinless beings that we know of in the universe, either, so if this line of reasoning is accurate, we'd have to also argue that nature reveals a God that is not omniscient, omnipotent or sinless... I therefore don't think that this line of reasoning carries any weight.

I’ll go out on a limb and say, if you can find the scripture which explicitly states God is multi-personal and the number of persons in God are three. I won’t be able to argue against the trinity.
But this thread is not about the Trinity per se. This is a Christology forum, and this thread is about the pre-existence of Christ. I was asking what sort of passage you would accept to show that Jesus was God (which would also prove that Jesus was pre-existent).

Now, it is my turn. If you don’t produce the explicit scripture which describes God as multi-personal will you admit God may just possibly be a uni-personal being? No wiggle room.
I think your demand is a little unsymmetrical, because even if there is not an explicit passage I think there are many that when pieced together provide the full picture.

The question I am asking you is what kind of statement would you need to believe that Jesus is YHWH/God. I think a fairer question for you to ask of me in return would be: What kind of statement would I need to believe that Jesus is not YHWH/God?

Let me summarise: If you can show me a passage in the Bible where it explicitly states any of the following:
God is not my Jesus
YHWH is not my Jesus
God did not become my Jesus
YHWH did not become my Jesus...I will admit that Jesus is not God, and I will look for a unitarian sect to join. :smile:

Now that I've gone out on a limb, I'll ask you the equivalent question in return: If I can show you a passage in the Bible where it claims any of the following:
God is my Jesus
YHWH is my Jesus
God has become my Jesus
YHWH has become my Jesus...will you then admit that Jesus is God? Note: admitting this in itself does not mean that you've admitted the full doctrine of the Trinity.

Ron Macy

August 31st 2003, 04:46 PM

Jezz

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Hah, I appreciate the humour! (Note: smilies are a good way of indicating humour.) I also apologise because I realise that it may have seemed that my paragraph was directed at you specifically - it wasn't. I should have used the more impersonal "one" - eg "because until one answers it, one always has a passage of retreat". Leaving a passage of retreat is a tactic that most people use in debate (probably myself included!)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No need to apologize (though I appreciate it). I understood your statement as a generalization.

I haven’t taken the time to learn how to use the smilies. I mentioned once before I clicked on an ‘ignore’ button and got this wonderful message questioning the appropriateness of ignoring myself. I may take the time to learn how to use them eventually.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I think it's a stretch to go from "we don't know of any multi-personal beings in nature" to "God cannot be a multi-personal being". While I agree that God is revealed in nature, I think it is a stretch to argue that this points to unitarianism just because there are no other multi-personal beings in the universe (that we know of). After all, there are no other omnipotent or omniscient or sinless beings that we know of in the universe, either, so if this line of reasoning is accurate, we'd have to also argue that nature reveals a God that is not omniscient, omnipotent or sinless... I therefore don't think that this line of reasoning carries any weight.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Understand, I haven’t made the stretch “God cannot be a multi-personal being” based solely on nature.

Your mention of omnipotence and omniscience as not revealed in nature is unsupported. You (or I) may not have the logic thought out, but I believe it is there. If it isn’t, then Romans 1 can’t be trusted as truth. As an example, I believed for years God had in some way revealed Himself to whatever back corner, tribal people you might mention. I had no idea how until I read Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson.

The follow-up portion is more important, though. The Bible does describe God as being omnipotent and omniscient. I am asking for the same kind of explicit statements we have on these doctrines in the Bible for the multi-personal doctrine you teach.

You are entitled to believe my line of reasoning is weightless. I disagree.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
But this thread is not about the Trinity per se. This is a Christology forum, and this thread is about the pre-existence of Christ. I was asking what sort of passage you would accept to show that Jesus was God (which would also prove that Jesus was pre-existent).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Correct me if I am wrong, but your original question, “What would you expect to see written in the Bible, if God did become Jesus???” wasn’t really thread releated either, was it?

God becoming Jesus is not the same as Jesus being pre-existent.

I thought you had introduced the wider topic of the trinity by your question.

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I think your demand is a little unsymmetrical, because even if there is not an explicit passage I think there are many that when pieced together provide the full picture.

The question I am asking you is what kind of statement would you need to believe that Jesus is YHWH/God. I think a fairer question for you to ask of me in return would be: What kind of statement would I need to believe that Jesus is not YHWH/God?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

First, “demand” is too harsh a word for what I asked. I gave you at least 2 levels of degree away from admiting God is not a trinity. “May” and “just possibly” are those 2 levels. I never asked you to acquiesce to God being uni-personal, just that it is a possibility.

Second, without explicit passages, we are simply back to your wiggle room versus mine. There are passages which explicitly speak of God being omniscient. There are passages which explicitly speak of God being omnipotent. Why is it to much to request explicit passages which describe the multi-personal nature of God?

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Let me summarise: If you can show me a passage in the Bible where it explicitly states any of the following:
• God is not my Jesus
• YHWH is not my Jesus
• God did not become my Jesus
• YHWH did not become my Jesus
...I will admit that Jesus is not God, and I will look for a unitarian sect to join. :smile:

Now that I've gone out on a limb, I'll ask you the equivalent question in return: If I can show you a passage in the Bible where it claims any of the following:
• God is my Jesus
• YHWH is my Jesus
• God has become my Jesus
• YHWH has become my Jesus
...will you then admit that Jesus is God? Note: admitting this in itself does not mean that you've admitted the full doctrine of the Trinity.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

No.

Forgive me for being stringent, but I have been down this road before. I don’t believe those bullet points reach to the heart of the doctrine. Verses are interpreted based on the idea of the existence of multi-personal beings. I want proof, Biblical proof, such beings can and do exist. My theory is, if there is no explicit Biblical foundation for multi-personal beings, then there is no reason to make the assumption of their existence when interpreting passages of the scripture. It is then necessary to consider alternative interpretations, of which unitarianism is one.

Ron

AVmetro

September 4th 2003, 01:23 AM

For some reason I didn't recieve an email notification when you (or Jezz for that matter) posted and I didn't bother to check the board itself. Sorry. I'll get back with you in a few days.

I haven’t taken the time to learn how to use the smilies.

When you click the 'reply' button and are in the area where you post, there will be a "smilies bar" to the left of the box where you type the text. You can simply click on any smilie in the list and it will automatically appear in the text box. If I click on ---> :smile:, the word 'smile' will appear in the box between ":"s. You can also type this text directly into the box once you learn what text will produce what smilie.

Also, if you want to quote someone, use the
[/quote ] tags, sans the spaces, around the portion of text you want to appear like so..

[quote]Quoted text here....

That's just in case you don't want to use the "><>" quoting method (which is fine with me or anyone else. Just depends on what you prefer).

God bless

phantaz sunlyk

September 4th 2003, 11:14 AM

say hey AV Iron-Man :wink:
any obnoxious ario-maniacs running around the neighborhood and making a nuisance of themselves? nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Bill the Cat

September 4th 2003, 11:27 AM

:offtopic: Phantaz... Welcome back. We've missed your input!!! :offtopic:

AVmetro

September 4th 2003, 08:34 PM

Hey, Phantaz! How have things been? :rockon:

Ron Macy

September 4th 2003, 10:40 PM

IronMetro

[quote ][/quote ] tags

Well, isn't that something. That makes me very happy! :teeth:

Thanks,
Ron

Jezz

September 5th 2003, 07:18 AM

Ron Macy:
I haven’t taken the time to learn how to use the smilies. I mentioned once before I clicked on an ‘ignore’ button and got this wonderful message questioning the appropriateness of ignoring myself. I may take the time to learn how to use them eventually.
Hah! I tried that "ignore" trick - very funny. The guys who maintain this board have a great sense of humour. :smile:

Understand, I haven’t made the stretch “God cannot be a multi-personal being” based solely on nature.
No, but you are using nature to bring your presupposition to the text, and interpret the text in that framework. This is not a good methodology. You should be letting the text speak for itself. A text is like a mirror for presuppositions. When we approach a text with presuppositions, we invariably read the very same presuppositions back out again.

Your mention of omnipotence and omniscience as not revealed in nature is unsupported. You (or I) may not have the logic thought out, but I believe it is there. If it isn’t, then Romans 1 can’t be trusted as truth.
I could say the same of the preexistence or deity of Christ. So this argument really doesn't get you anywhere.

As an example, I believed for years God had in some way revealed Himself to whatever back corner, tribal people you might mention. I had no idea how until I read Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson.
I haven't read that book, but I agree that God reveals himself to everyone. Exactly how I think this works is actually inseparable from how I understand the deity and prexistence of Jesus. :smile:

The follow-up portion is more important, though. The Bible does describe God as being omnipotent and omniscient.
Actually, it doesn't. Neither of these words appear in either the NIV. And only "omnipotent" appears in the KJV - and even then, only once. And this fact will actually allow me to demonstrate the flaw in your methodology.

(Disclaimer: the following is not a true representation of my beliefs.)
===============
I examine nature. Nothing in nature is omnipotent or omniscient. In fact, I believe that nature demonstrates that God is neither. Because if God is good, he would stop all the suffering in the world if he could. Because I believe God is good, I nature therefore leads me to believe that God is not omnipotent.

As I said above: A text is like a mirror to presuppositions. When we approach a text with presuppositions, we invariably read the very same presuppositions back out again.

The Bible never says that God is omnipotent. There is only one verse in the KJV that contains the word omnipotent:

Revelation 9:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
This verse is clearly a hyperbole or a mistranslation, because God is not really omnipotent. In fact, the NIV translates omnipotent as "Almighty" - a common title for God in the OT. Being a title, this word does not in itself convey God's omnipotence.

There are a few other verses in the Bible that seem to indicate that God is all-powerful. However, it would seem that these are most likely just more cases of hyperbole. God is powerful, sure, but not omnipotent.

Thus we see that there is no evidence in either the Bible or in scripture that proves God is omnipotent. Clearly, therefore, He is not.
===============

Welcome back to the real world. Is God omnipotent? Of course He is. My conclusion was not as the result of reasoning, but the result of my presupposition. My presupposition based on the observations of nature caused me to try and find alternative explanations for the plain meaning of the phrases that spoke of God's omnipotence. Just as your presuppositions about the non-pre-existence of Christ have caused you to impose alternative explanations on Bible passages that speak plainly of Jesus' preexistence and deity.

I agree that God is revealled in nature. But I disagree that God can be compared to anything in nature:

Isaiah 40:25 "To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will you compare me or count me equal?
To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.

Not only that, but if God was adequately described to us in nature alone, wouldn't that make the Bible completely redundant? As I see it, nature points the way, but is vague - nature teaches us that God exists, and he seems pretty powerful and fairly nice guy. The Bible is where we get the specifics - God is not merely "pretty powerful", but all-powerful (omnipotent). He's not merely "a fairly nice guy", but all-good (omnibenevolant), etc. It is a false start to base your theology on such an vague and equivocal revelation as nature. Fortunately, God gave us the Bible so that we wouldn't have to. :smile:

I am asking for the same kind of explicit statements we have on these doctrines in the Bible for the multi-personal doctrine you teach.
The idea of a multi-personal being is more complicated than either omnipotence or omniscience. It is made up of several explicit statements. See more on this below, when I discuss the doctrine of the "omniomni" God.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your original question, “What would you expect to see written in the Bible, if God did become Jesus???” wasn’t really thread releated either, was it?
Well, you asked me to correct you if you were wrong, so I will. :wink: That was not actually my original question. I returned to this thread in response to your challenge to IronMetro:

God's name is not Jesus. If you have a scripture in mind which clearly states God's name to be Jesus, I would be glad to consider it.

In response, I wrote:

But how about if I could show you a verse that didn't actually say that God's name was Jesus, but rather said that God was Jesus, or that God is become Jesus? Would that be a satisfactory verse for you?

You balked at that suggestion, so I asked what you would accept. And that led us to where we are now.

God becoming Jesus is not the same as Jesus being pre-existent.
Well, that depends on when God became Jesus, doesn't it? :wink:

I thought you had introduced the wider topic of the trinity by your question.
As I pointed out, I was specifically trying to respond to your request.

First, “demand” is too harsh a word for what I asked. I gave you at least 2 levels of degree away from admiting God is not a trinity. “May” and “just possibly” are those 2 levels. I never asked you to acquiesce to God being uni-personal, just that it is a possibility.
Well, I didn't intend "demand" to be read in a harsh tone. Read it as "request" then.

I couldn't exactly admit to the possibility that Jesus was not God, because there are other passages that I believe demonstrate that Jesus was God. However, if I was completely new to the Bible, and had no preconceived biases about the deity or non-deity of Christ, then I could certainly admit to the possibility that Jesus may not have been God.

Consider it from my point of view: what if I had said the following: If you can't find a passage that says "God is not my Jesus", then will you perhaps admit that there is the slightest chance that maybe Jesus is God? I wouldn't expect you to admit that, because it's an "argument from silence" and you've presumably got more evidence for your position elsewhere that you consider proves Jesus was not God. Moreover, even if you did admit it, you haven't really admitted much, have you?

Compare this to what I've done: I've laid my faith on the line. I have gone on the record as saying that if you find an explicit passage that says "God is not my Jesus", then I will join a unitarian denomination. I'm willing to stake my belief in the deity of Christ on the complete non-existence of such a passage. There is no wiggle room for me here - my continued belief is completely dependent on your inability to find such a passage. Are you willing to stake your belief in the non-pre-existence (and hence non-deity) of Christ in this manner? Do you have that much conviction? From your later comments, it would seem not... :brow:

Second, without explicit passages, we are simply back to your wiggle room versus mine. There are passages which explicitly speak of God being omniscient. There are passages which explicitly speak of God being omnipotent.
Interesting. You believe that God is omnipotent and that God is omniscient because there are explicit passages. Yet you admitted below that even if I could present you with a passage that said God was Jesus, you wouldn't believe it. Isn't that a tad inconsistent?

But anyway, I can't see how you can complain about me leaving myself wiggle room. As I explained above, I've left myself no wiggle room.

Why is it to much to request explicit passages which describe the multi-personal nature of God?
Why should such a passage be necessary, when all the component parts of the multi-personal nature of God are made explicitly?

For example, suppose I invent a new term to describe God's nature, as revealed to us in the Bible. I'll call it "omniomni". To say that God is "omniomni" is simply shorthand for claiming the following:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipresent.
4. God is omnibenevolant (all-good).
5. God is omnitemporal (which is a word I just made up as a synonym for "eternal" :smile:).

Now, there is no specific passage in scripture which says that "God is omniomni". And there is certainly nothing in nature which is omniomni. However, there are explicit passages in the Bible that make all of points 1-5. These passages are not always grouped together, but are spread throughout the Bible. Therefore, even though there is no explicit passage that says "God is omniomni", it is still a biblical teaching. Wouldn't you agree that, by this definition of "omniomni", God is in fact "omniomni"?

The same is true of the Trinity. To claim that God is triune is actually shorthand for claiming the following:

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son (Jesus) is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is separate from the Son and from the Holy Spirit.
5. The Son is separate from the Holy Spirit.
6. There is only one God.

If I can find explicit passages to prove each of these points, then I have proved the Trinity - in the same way that I can prove that God is "omniomni". To deny the Trinity because there is no explicit passage saying that God is triune is to deny that God is "omniomni".

But this is again getting off topic. The purpose of this thread is to establish the preexistence of Jesus. I was attempting to do that by showing point 2 - ie, that God is Jesus.

No.
Interesting. I guess you don't have as much faith in your position as I have in mine... :brow:

Forgive me for being stringent, but I have been down this road before.
Well, I suggest that you keep going down that road and not turn back this time. It is the road that leads to the Truth.

I don’t believe those bullet points reach to the heart of the doctrine.
You're right - they don't reach into the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. They weren't intended to! They were intended to reach to the heart of the doctrine of the deity of Jesus. I explained this last time.

Verses are interpreted based on the idea of the existence of multi-personal beings.
Putting all presuppositions aside, what else could a verse saying "God is my Jesus" possibly mean, if not "God is my Jesus"??? The only way to get it to mean anything else is by imposing your presupposition on the text.

You asked for an explicit scripture. And now that I'm threatening to give you one, you are retreating. You bluffed, and I've called your bluff. And I've demonstrated my point - if a passage as plain as "God is my Jesus" doesn't convince you that God was Jesus, then you aren't really interested in learning the Truth. It simply doesn't get any plainer than that. If you don't accept that, then it's because your mind is already made up that Jesus was not preexistent, and you are going to interpret any passage you find within that framework - no matter how much damage it does to the plain reading of the text.

At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm sincerely hoping that you'll prove me wrong by accepting my challenge. Who knows? Maybe I am bluffing too - maybe I don't have examples of the scripture verses that I set forth. But you're not going to find out until you call me on it though... :teeth: Here it is again:

If I can produce a scripture passage that says any of the following:
God is my Jesus.
YHWH is my Jesus.
God has become my Jesus.
YHWH has become my Jesus....will you admit that God is Jesus? I've already staked my faith on the converse claim. If you really have faith in your position that God is not Jesus, then I expect you to do the same. :wink:

I want proof, Biblical proof, such beings can and do exist. My theory is, if there is no explicit Biblical foundation for multi-personal beings, then there is no reason to make the assumption of their existence when interpreting passages of the scripture. It is then necessary to consider alternative interpretations, of which unitarianism is one.
Your methodology is correct, in as far as you need Biblical proof that multi-personal beings exist before you believe it. But where your methodology is incorrect is that you are exploring alternative interpretations instead of trinitarianism. You should approach the text assuming no particular interpretation, and evaluate all of the alternative interpretations side-by-side. This includes trinitarianism. Otherwise, if trintarianism is true, you are excluding yourself from the truth a-priori.

God bless,
-Jezz

Ron Macy

September 7th 2003, 06:37 PM

Jezz

You wrote,

Your methodology is correct, in as far as you need Biblical proof that multi-personal beings exist before you believe it. But where your methodology is incorrect is that you are exploring alternative interpretations instead of trinitarianism. You should approach the text assuming no particular interpretation, and evaluate all of the alternative interpretations side-by-side. This includes trinitarianism. Otherwise, if trintarianism is true, you are excluding yourself from the truth a-priori.

You have passages of scripture you interpret as indicating a multi-personality. Yet, you are bring the presupposition of multi-personality to those texts. I am insisting on explicit texts which define the existence of multi-personality before assuming other texts indicate multi-personality. Without explicit definitions of multi-personality, there is no reason to read multi-personality into any passage. Doing so is definitely bad methodology.

Ron

OldShepherd

September 7th 2003, 07:09 PM

07-23-2003 @ 12:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155749#post155749)
Socrates:

This is from Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum's audio tape, The life of Christ from a Jewish Perspective, transcribed at http://icgod.com/Main.htm#1.%20The%20‘LOGOS’. Dr F is a Hebrew Christian or Messianic Jew and founder of Ariel Ministries www.ariel.org/.

1. The LOGOS John Chapter 1.

The Gospel of John is often accused of being the most Gentile of the four Gospels. But a more careful study of his Gospel shows that it is just as Jewish if not more so than some of the others. John begins his Gospel with the famous sentence in verse 1 of chapter 1, &#8220;In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.&#8221; Now most of you probably know that the term John used here is the Greek word Logos which in English would mean &#8220;Word&#8221;. But because he used the Greek term logos many commentaries on John at this point go into a rather lengthy deviation to explain what exactly logos meant in terms of Greek philosophy. They may take a few pages to do it or they may take many pages to do it depending on the size of the commentary, but in the end they all say basically the same thing.

And what they say is this; That the logos in Greek philosophy had two concepts. These were the concept of reason and the concept of speech. After telling us that in Greek philosophy the logos had these two concepts of reason and speech they then try to point out that what John is doing in these first 18 verses of his gospel, is to show how Jesus comes to fulfil the goals of Greek philosophy.

In that by reason he was the very idea of God and that by speech he was the very expression of God. That’s all well and good to know but what these commentators forget is that by profession John was not a Greek philosopher, but he was a Jewish fisherman. What he really has in mind is not Greek philosophy, but the Jewish theology of that day. In the Rabbinic literature of that day there was a concept that they had developed called the Memra. It is an Aramaic term that means &#8220;word&#8221;. And since John was writing his gospel in Greek, he of course needed a Greek term to translate the Jewish word Memra. The only Greek term he could use adequately was logos but when he says logos, he does not mean the logos of Greek philosophy, but rather, the Memra of Jewish theology, and we will see this very quickly.

Now if you read through the Rabbinic literature of that day you will discover that the Rabbis taught six things about the Memra. Six things were true about the Memra, and all six things come out one way or the other in these 18 verses.

• • •

I will not repeat all of Socrates' post , it is above if anyone wants to reread it. But if you want to verify what Socrates said you can do so in The Jewish Encyclopedia, published in 1910, by the Jewish KTAV publishing company, for Jews. Here is a link to the encyclopedia and a short quote from the article on Memra. When John said, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was toward God, and the Word was God.," he was not saying anything new.
MEMRA
By: Kaufmann Kohler

-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

OldShepherd

September 7th 2003, 07:38 PM

Today @ 08:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=205474#post205474)
Ron Macy:

Jezz

You wrote,

You have passages of scripture you interpret as indicating a multi-personality. Yet, you are bring the presupposition of multi-personality to those texts. I am insisting on explicit texts which define the existence of multi-personality before assuming other texts indicate multi-personality. Without explicit definitions of multi-personality, there is no reason to read multi-personality into any passage. Doing so is definitely bad methodology.

Ron

Every so often another anti-Trinitarian will come up with what he/she thinks is the consummate argument against the Trinity. This, “no scriptural evidence for a multi-personal being” is one such argument. Read this exchange between Jesus and the Gadarene demoniac. Note, particularly that Jesus addresses the demon with a singular pronoun and the demon initially responds with a singular pronoun. Whatcha wanna bet that Mssr. Macy will now change his argument to, “I meant in the Old Testament”?
Mark 5:6 But when he [sing.] saw Jesus afar off, he [sing.] ran and worshipped him,
7 And cried with a loud voice, [sing.] and said, What have I [sing.] to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I [sing.] adjure thee by God, that thou torment me [sing.] not.
8 For he said unto him [sing.], Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. [sing.]
9 And he asked him [sing.], What is thy name? [sing.] And he [sing.] answered, saying, My name [sing.] is Legion: for we [pl.] are many.
10 And he [sing.] besought him much that he would not send them [pl.] away out of the country.
11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils [pl.] besought him, saying, Send us [pl.] into the swine, that we [pl.] may enter into them.
[cue video]Band playing "Give my regards to Broadway." Tapdancer enters stage right.[/end video]

mickiel

September 8th 2003, 09:15 PM

But the mind of man is ANOTHER scripture, and it is intensely belived by its followers. There are two ways to understand God, neither of which can be contexted outside of John 3:27. 3:22, is a direct quote from the living word, we do not know God. We have an inate desire to want to know. That desire is under the direct seal of God himself. Paul, the greatest spiritual human mind , in my view, admitted he sees through a dim shadowed view of God, just not very clear on things. His view was under Gods control. Produce the man on earth who sees greater than Paul, and i say his view can be trusted.

OldShepherd

September 9th 2003, 01:55 AM

Today @ 11:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206293#post206293)
mickiel:

Nowhere in scripture is the Holy Spirit called God.

You are off topic and you are a false prophet. Acts 5:3-4, one lie!
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

mickiel

September 9th 2003, 04:29 AM

Today @ 06:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206491#post206491)
OldShepherd:

You are off topic and you are a false prophet. Acts 5:3-4, one lie!
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

but you might distinguish the differance in 1 Thess. 4:8, to reject God is to reject his vessel, Christ included, but not the same. The principle is explained in Luke 10:16, Christ is relating how it is possible to be actually given a distinction that gives one a voice compared to his own, but not actually be his own. In this example, a human is given equal pertinance to his own voice. The human is not Christ speaking, but heaven records it as such. This is the case in Acts 5:4, but also a case of the power and rule of God. All things are tied to him. Notice 1 Thess. 4:8, consider the rejection shown here as a rejection of God, who gives his Spirit to man. A clear distinction of one thing giving a seperate thing to another, but the thing given is given representation of the giver. If you reject me, you then reject my messenger. You are inncorrect in labeling me a false prophet, i am no prophet. I am no different than you, a human being seeking God. I believe you seek him, you just do not honor the effort of my own. I understand this. There is no power in you to label a man as incompetent of God. You just take that unto yourself. You sound spiritual, but lack the power to be established by heaven.

Jezz

September 10th 2003, 09:58 AM

Hey Ron,

Ron Macy:
You have passages of scripture you interpret as indicating a multi-personality. Yet, you are bring the presupposition of multi-personality to those texts. I am insisting on explicit texts which define the existence of multi-personality before assuming other texts indicate multi-personality. Without explicit definitions of multi-personality, there is no reason to read multi-personality into any passage. Doing so is definitely bad methodology.
Notwithstanding the fact that OldShepherd has already given you Biblical proof of a multi-personal demon, thereby rendering your entire line of argument moot, I will answer your post as if he hadn't. Because your approach is still methodologically unsound.

This is the same objection that you raised in your previous response to me. Hence, I already answered this objection in my last post. I will summarise it here: it seems that you are ruling out trinitarianism and assuming unitarianism before reading the Bible. This is back-to-front. You need to rule out nothing a-priori - before you start, assume that God could be unitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, n-itarian (where n is an arbitrary integer), or maybe even polytheistic. Decide up front what sort of verses you would expect to see for each hypothesis in turn. And once you've done that, then you examine the scriptures for verses that fit each of these hypotheses. From that, you should be able to see which hypothesis the scriptures fit best. In short, let the scriptures themselves tell you the nature of God(s). Don't presume to know anything about God's nature before you've read His autobiography.

Having put that aside, I'm going to get off the topic of multi-personality, and back onto the pre-existence of Christ.

Suppose hypothetically that there was a verse in the Bible that said "God is Jesus". The plain meaning of this text is that God is Jesus. But according to your belief, Jesus did not pre-exist his birth, which implies that God was not Jesus. Therefore, if this verse was to appear in the scripture, how would you explain it?

Ron Macy

September 10th 2003, 09:20 PM

Ron - I'm simply using the 'edit" tags to retain this post in the event that you left something out of the latter duplicate that was present in the first. - IronMetro

Jezz

You wrote,

Notwithstanding the fact that OldShepherd has already given you Biblical proof of a multi-personal demon, thereby rendering your entire line of argument moot,

Why don’t you take a few moments and help me understand how OldShepherd has proven the existence of a multi-personal demon.

You wrote,

This is back-to-front.

I have been trying to figure out from what part of the British Commonwealth (Is it still called that?) you come. I have heard someone from England use this phrase. Could it come from anywhere else, too?

You wrote,

You need to rule out nothing<> /ia-priori - before you start, assume that God could be unitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, n-itarian (where n is an arbitrary integer), or maybe even polytheistic.

I very much agree with you on this point. I may have sounded to you like I ruled things out, but it might be more appropriate to say I have not ruled things in.

You wrote,

Decide up front what sort of verses you would expect to see for each hypothesis in turn.

This is where I believe you have things back-to-front.

I do not believe it is proper to form a hypothesis of a teaching, decide what I would expect the Bible to say to support that hypothesis, and then search the scriptures to see what I find. My method is to read the scripture, determine what it says, and base doctrines on what I believe it says. In this way, I can base my doctrines on what the Bible clearly says, and not on what is not negated.

Let me illustrate what I mean.

IronMetro wrote,

What in scripture teaches that Christ did not preexist.

I do not intend to criticize IM by using him as an illustration. I have seen it done by many, many people.

It appears he has followed your example, hypothesized Jesus existed before His birth, and then has decided nothing in the scripture says Jesus didn’t exist before His birth. He, and you, apparently, believe you are safe in taking this approach to the scripture. I don’t think you are.

Understand, there may be a million false teachings in the world. They may all contradict each other. They are all wrong. Just because they contradict each other does not make one right and another wrong. They can all be wrong. There is only one right teaching. I believe it is based on what the Bible says. Each one of the million wrong teaching can hypothesize what they would expect the Bible to say to support their teaching; they may even find some passages which appear to support their hypothesis. In the end, almost every one of them can say, “The Bible doesn’t contradict my hypothesis.” The teachings are still wrong.

I believe your methodology leaves you open to choosing the wrong teachings.

You wrote,

In short, let the scriptures themselves tell you the nature of God(s). Don't presume to know anything about God's nature before you've read His autobiography.

I can agree completely with these two sentences. I believe that is what I do.

You wrote,

This is the same objection that you raised in your previous response to me. Hence, I already answered this objection in my last post.

What I don’t think you understand is I am bringing nothing to the text. I am not bringing any ideas of God’s multi-personal or uni-personal nature to the text. I know I am a uni-personal being. From my experience, I know of no multi-personal beings. Yes, I have heard of people with what is called multiple personality disorder. I see the key to the phrase is “disorder.” Someone has already made the point these people are treated and are considered “cured” when there is only one person left.

With this in mind, I go to the scriptures. I have no reason to even make the hypotheses of multi-personality. I find no texts which explicitly describe multi-personal beings. I find no text which explicitly describes God as multi-personal. Therefore, I have no reason to believe God is a multi-personal being. I am going strictly on what the Bible does teaches and not on what it doesn’t teach against. I believe that is a better methodology.

You wrote,

Having put that aside, I'm going to get off the topic of multi-personality, and back onto the pre-existence of Christ.

Your hypothetical question does not go back to the purpose of the thread. IronMetro recognized the difference between the Jehovah’s Witness teaching about Jesus and mine. He recognized one can believe in the pre-existence of Jesus without believing Jesus is God. He is trying to establish the validity of the sentient existence of Jesus before His birth. He intends to build the deity of Jesus onto the idea of this sentient existence. He is working on pre-existence, first. Your hypothetical is going the other direction. Would it be OK with you to stick with IM’s original direction? At least for now?

Thanks,
Ron

Ron Macy

September 10th 2003, 09:25 PM

Jezz

You wrote,

Notwithstanding the fact that OldShepherd has already given you Biblical proof of a multi-personal demon, thereby rendering your entire line of argument moot,

Why don’t you take a few moments and help me understand how OldShepherd has proven the existence of a multi-personal demon.

You wrote,

This is back-to-front.

I have been trying to figure out from what part of the British Commonwealth (Is it still called that?) you come. I have heard someone from England use this phrase. Could it come from anywhere else, too?

You wrote,

You need to rule out nothing /ia-priori - before you start, assume that God could be unitarian, binitarian, trinitarian, n-itarian (where n is an arbitrary integer), or maybe even polytheistic.

I very much agree with you on this point. I may have sounded to you like I ruled things out, but it might be more appropriate to say I have not ruled things in.

You wrote,

Decide up front what sort of verses you would expect to see for each hypothesis in turn.

This is where I believe you have things back-to-front.

I do not believe it is proper to form a hypothesis of a teaching, decide what I would expect the Bible to say to support that hypothesis, and then search the scriptures to see what I find. My method is to read the scripture, determine what it says, and base doctrines on what I believe it says. In this way, I can base my doctrines on what the Bible clearly says, and not on what is not negated.

Let me illustrate what I mean.

IronMetro wrote,

What in scripture teaches that Christ did not preexist.

I do not intend to criticize IM by using him as an illustration. I have seen it done by many, many people.

It appears he has followed your example, hypothesized Jesus existed before His birth, and then has decided nothing in the scripture says Jesus didn’t exist before His birth. He, and you, apparently, believe you are safe in taking this approach to the scripture. I don’t think you are.

Understand, there may be a million false teachings in the world. They may all contradict each other. They are all wrong. Just because they contradict each other does not make one right and another wrong. They can all be wrong. There is only one right teaching. I believe it is based on what the Bible says. Each one of the million wrong teaching can hypothesize what they would expect the Bible to say to support their teaching; they may even find some passages which appear to support their hypothesis. In the end, almost every one of them can say, “The Bible doesn’t contradict my hypothesis.” The teachings are still wrong.

I believe your methodology leaves you open to choosing the wrong teachings.

You wrote,

In short, let the scriptures themselves tell you the nature of God(s). Don't presume to know anything about God's nature before you've read His autobiography.

I can agree completely with these two sentences. I believe that is what I do.

You wrote,

This is the same objection that you raised in your previous response to me. Hence, I already answered this objection in my last post.

What I don’t think you understand is I am bringing nothing to the text. I am not bringing any ideas of God’s multi-personal or uni-personal nature to the text. I know I am a uni-personal being. From my experience, I know of no multi-personal beings. Yes, I have heard of people with what is called multiple personality disorder. I see the key to the phrase is “disorder.” Someone has already made the point these people are treated and are considered “cured” when there is only one personality left.

With this in mind, I go to the scriptures. I have no reason to even make the hypotheses of multi-personality. I find no texts which explicitly describe multi-personal beings. I find no text which explicitly describes God as multi-personal. Therefore, I have no reason to believe God is a multi-personal being. I am going strictly on what the Bible does teaches and not on what it doesn’t teach against. I believe that is a better methodology.

You wrote,

Having put that aside, I'm going to get off the topic of multi-personality, and back onto the pre-existence of Christ.

Your hypothetical question does not go back to the purpose of the thread. IronMetro recognized the difference between the Jehovah’s Witness teaching about Jesus and mine. He recognized one can believe in the pre-existence of Jesus without believing Jesus is God. He is trying to establish the validity of the sentient existence of Jesus before His birth. He intends to build the deity of Jesus onto the idea of this sentient existence. He is working on pre-existence, first. Your hypothetical is going the other direction. Would it be OK with you to stick with IM’s original direction? At least for now?

Thanks,
Ron

Ron Macy

September 10th 2003, 09:27 PM

Help me, somebody!!

I was afraid that double submit might have happened.

Can someone delete the first one? I wasn't done editing, yet.

Thanks,
Ron

OldShepherd

September 11th 2003, 12:26 AM

Today @ 11:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208316#post208316)
Ron Macy:

Jezz

You wrote,

Notwithstanding the fact that OldShepherd has already given you Biblical proof of a multi-personal demon, thereby rendering your entire line of argument moot,

Why don’t you take a few moments and help me understand how OldShepherd has proven the existence of a multi-personal demon.

Ah, the old copout. Jesus did not specifically say "Come out of him you multi-personal demon." so the passage I posted does not prove multi-personal beings. I guess that is why Mssr. Macy will not make a definite commitment to say what kind of verses he would expect to find which would dissuade him from his presuppositions and assumptions. Cognitive dissonance and plausible deniablility. Kinda like trying to pick up mercury with your hands.

OldShepherd

September 11th 2003, 01:31 AM

Ron Macy:
What I don’t think you understand is I am bringing nothing to the text. I am not bringing any ideas of God’s multi-personal or uni-personal nature to the text. I know I am a uni-personal being. From my experience, I know of no multi-personal beings. Yes, I have heard of people with what is called multiple personality disorder. I see the key to the phrase is “disorder.” Someone has already made the point these people are treated and are considered “cured” when there is only one person left.

Ron says he brings nothing to the text and then explains, in detail, why he does, in fact, bring “uni-personality” to the text. Because he is a uni-personal being and he knows of no multi-personal beings. Ignoring the fact, that God is NOT a man and is not limited by man’s so-called “laws” of physics, common sense, etc.

”Someone has already made the point these people [multiple personalities] are treated and are considered “cured” when there is only one person left.” And of course medical science is always, 100% of the time, right? For many, many years the medical profession thought ulcers were caused by stress, and treated the symptoms with antacids. In recent years they have found that ulcers are caused by a bacteria, H. Pylori, NOT stress, so now they treat the cause with antibiotics.

AVmetro

September 12th 2003, 01:21 AM

Ron Macy:

Help me, somebody!!

I was afraid that double submit might have happened.

Can someone delete the first one? I wasn't done editing, yet.

Thanks,
Ron

Fixed.

AVmetro

September 12th 2003, 01:25 AM

I'm behind! :doh: It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that I've slept about 80-90% of the past two weeks away. Please, no quotes from the book of Proverbs on over-sleeping...:read::solly:

Ron-

I printed off your reply yesterday and began to work on it. I should have a reply soon. Thanks for your patience.

God bless--IM

Ron Macy

September 13th 2003, 10:59 AM

IronMetro,

I'm behind! It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that I've slept about 80-90% of the past two weeks away.

I have only two things to say.

1. I am jealous.

2. You must have needed it.

Thanks, too, for editing out the first of the double post. I really appreciate it.

Ron

AVmetro

September 22nd 2003, 12:20 AM

If the following appears a bit choppy and there are a few spelling errors, please forgive them. I had printed your reply, written in my comments while at work, then basically kept forgetting to type it out (translation: Went to sleep when I should have been doing better things :doh:)

Fashionably late, but here she goes..

---------------------------------------------------------

Ron Macy stated:

Hebrew poetry is big on parallelisms. Different phrases are used to describe the same things or to show the antithesis. In this case, I don’t believe there needs to be any nuances which distinguish word, light, and life. If I were to suggest a difference, it would be in the effect of the word on men and not differences of definition. Word could represent the thought processes of God directed toward the salvation of men and ultimately, the Kingdom of God. Light could represent the contrast of God’s thought processes with the thought processes of the world or mankind, light contrasted with dark. Life could point to the ultimate effect of the thought processes of God for mankind, God’s plan means eternal life for us. (Sounds like a sermon in there somewhere.) All three are the same thing, just viewed from a different perspective.

The above helps to an extent. My main reson for aksing being as a result of such examples as your response to my obs4rvation that the Apostle John takes great care not to confuse *the person* of John the Baptist with the 'True Light'. Hence I proposed an explanation that I had derived from your reply to that point. Thanks.

I also want to take this time to point out a slight double standard on your part. You have taken the liberty to label the logoV as being the "plan of God", "laws of God" etc,. when I see neither the *word* 'plan' (i.e. in the Greek) etc,. in the immediate context. Your basis for interpretation appears to be somewhat similar to mine, yet with less substantiation, I would assert.

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

I am not sure I understand what the genitive dia has to do with God creating the universe by His plan.

So long as you don't argue that it means "on account of", I see not point in arguing over it.

Ron Macy stated:

For what it is worth, I don’t believe Hebrews 1:10-12 is speaking of Jesus. I believe it is speaking of God (uni-personal). I think the conjunction in verse 10 marks a line between what is being said about the Messiah and what is being said about God.

That's rather strange as the conjunction ('kai') is what I strongly believe necessitates that the quote apply to the Son. The theme of the first chapter of Hebrews (vs4) is to demonstrate the superiorityof the Son to the angels. Hence, I cannot find a reason to make mention of the FAthewr, especially given the fclear pattern of the context (note vs13 as a continuation of this pattern after vss10-12). In every instance, the authro of HEbrews makes it a point to state to whom thje following quotation refers e.g. vs5 'angels', vs6 'firstborn', vs7 'angels', vs8 'Son' [.....] vs13 'angels'. Following each of the mentioned, a quotation from the OT is provided to prove a point i.e. to support the author's argument. That being said, we now focus on vs8. Note;

"But to the Son [Christ] He [the Father] says.."

..OT quote (Ps 45:6-7)

AND ['kai']

..OT quote (Ps 102:25-27 LXX)

Again, I see no visible reason why the FAther would be in view here, given the theme of the ocntext as well as the OT quote itself ie.. the eternality of YHWH (a sheer 'given' to the audience of Hebrews). You can see a parallel example in vs5 i.e.;

"For to which of the angels did He ever say.."

..OT quote.. (Ps2:7)

AND ['kai']

..OT quote.. (2Sam 7:14)

I believe that Heb1:10 unequivocably proves the preexistence (and deity) of Jesus Christ.

Ron Macy stated:

I believe you have this backwards. The idea of any person having conscious existence before their birth is not clear in nature. By that I mean by observing the world around us there is no reason to believe anyone or anything has existed as sentient beings before their birth.

What you need to provide is clear, explicit teaching from the scripture that someone has had sentient existence before their birth. I believe you have assumed sentient existence before birth is possible without having explicit scriptures to support the idea. So, it is not I who has to prove Jesus did not preexist. It is you who must prove He did preexist. So far, you haven’t. (At least in my opinion.)

I can't think of this as gbeing anything other than a red herring. See Jezz's post addressing this. The argument only swings both ways. The same applies to God's omni-"x" and eternality of YHWH. That is, I cannot find such in nature ergo it must not be true of YHWH. The reasoning fails. The problem is, there are numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethlehem. It is only the detractors interpretation of these passages sans any scriptural support that states otherwise.

Ron Macy stated:

This is really confusing. I am trying to determine which “God” in what context is a ‘personal name’ which can be eliminated.

More specifcally, the *person* of God as you view Him in the context.

Ron Macy stated:

...8<...

If I were to look at it from what I believe is your perspective, John 1:1 would come out somewhat like this.

1b: the Word was with (one whose name is) God,
1c: and the Word was (one whose name is) God.

Yet I am not arguing from MY perspective. I am arguing from yours. Under my view, the LogoV is preexistant deity who is with God [the Father]. There isn't a need for discernment as theos in 1b, in my view, is simply the Father.

Ron Macy stated:

Yet, you are saying one of these, (one whose name is) God, is eliminated as a condender for the name in verse 12. Is it both? One or the other? Which? If it is one or the other, how can I tell the difference without making some assumptions before I come to this passage?

Remember, I am not arguing for the "name" in vs12 as being 'God'. I am arguing that it is that of Christ i.e. Jesus. Now as to your question, there is no need to 'make assumptions' before hand as we are told which 'God' it is i.e. we know the LogoV is not the *person* of the Father; we know that the LogoV is WITH the Father. Third, John 1b uses 'ho theos' in reference to the Father, whereas the article is lacking in reference to the 'Word'. I cite James White's argument as to why this is:
This last phrase has come under heavy fire throughout the ages. The correct translation of this passage is here given, and anyone interested in the technical aspects of the argument are referred to Appendix A. Basically, the passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. John does not here call the Word "a divine one," as some polytheistic Greek might say. He did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature, or a god-like one. Instead, he used theos, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" (17:3). He uses the term three times of Jesus in the Gospel, here, in 1:18, and in 20:28. It can not be doubted that John would never call a creature theos. His upbringing and Jewish heritage forbad that.
How then are we to undertand these two phrases? Benjamin B. Warfield said:

"And the Word was with God." The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already "was," "was" also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a seperate being from God: "And the Word was" --still the eternal "was" --"God." In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is "with," He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate "God" occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase "with God," as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self. (3)

The Beloved Apostle walks a tight line here. By the simple ommission of the article ("the", or in Greek, ho) before the word for God in the last phrase, John avoids teaching Sabellianism, while by placing the word where it is in the clause, he defeats another heresy, Arianism, which denies the true Deity of the Lord Jesus. A person who accepts the inspiration of the Scriptures can not help but be thrilled at this passage.
[Source: http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html]

Ron Macy stated:

If we consider logos as an inanimate concept, it is indeed with God (1b). As an inaimate concept of God’s, it does have all the character traits of God (1c). But because logos isn’t a person, God is not eliminated as a contender for name in verse 12. In fact, God is the only person in view.

I would still think so. As I stated prior, (and, ironically to cite the old Unitarian argument ;-), the LogoV is said to be WITH the person of God [the Father], therefore He/It cannot BE the person of the Father, unless one wanted to argue for Sabellianism. Lastly, stating that the LogoV is not a person is assuming one's case in advance.

...8<...

Ron Macy:

In what you quoted from me, “. . .verse 11 and 12 can refer to laws of God. . .,” I specifically did not capitalize ‘laws’ so as to not confuse what I was saying with the Laws of Moses. It didn’t work, did it?

Yet confusing it is nonetheless. The only "laws of God" I know of are those found in the Torah i.e. the Mosaic Law. Whether it is capitalized or not, doesn't give a clear indication that you meant otherwise than what would be obviously taken by "laws of God''. Secondly, could you clarify a little further what is meant by "believing on the name {of these laws}..in order to obtain eternal life? The reference to Christ seems so clear to me as to exclude any other interpretation.

Ron Macy stated:

The logos is the plan of God for the salvation of mankind and it’s culmination in the Kingdom of God. It is the thread of hope which runs from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:15) to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:5-8; 17:5-8; etc.) to Judah (Genesis 49:8-12) to Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) to David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; 2 Chronicles 17:11:14; Psalm 22; 23; 24; 89:3-4, 26-27, 29, 36-37; 110:1-2) to Isaiah (52:13-14; 53, etc) to Jeremiah (23:5-6; 33:14-16) to Daniel (7:13-14) to Micah (5:2) and culminates in Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20 as far as the Laws of Moses is concerned).

I have no disagreement that the above is the "plan of God". What needs to be settled is whether or not this is what 'LogoV' in Jn1 denotes. Granted that it does denote this what is to say that it does not speak of Christ as the "plan of God" as it does in 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 without the a priori assumption that Christ did not preexist?

Ron Macy:

God gave the Laws to Moses for many reasons. There were health regulations which have separated the Jews from many diseases for centuries. There were sacrifices which in one way or another have pointed to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. Finally, there is the demand for the righteousness and holiness of the people of Israel. Paul wrote in Romans 7 about the holiness of the Law. Paul wrote in Galatians 3 about how the Law of Moses was to be a teacher to us until we recognize a single piece of information. That single piece of information is no one has obeyed the Law of Moses perfectly, nor can obey the Law of Moses perfectly, and therefore, we can only throw ourselves on the mercy of God for true forgiveness, righteousness, and holiness (It is my contention there have been people from the time of Moses until Jesus who recognized this and had faith in God to make them righteous even as they were as obedient as possible to the Law.). The ultimate purpose of the Laws of Moses were to point us to the grace of God through Jesus. Jesus being the only man who has perfectly obeyed the Laws of Moses (Hebrews 4:15).

Again, there is not to much to disagree with here so far as what the *word* 'LogoV' might denote. However, it can easily apply to Christ in name and allow for His preexistence. Even as an alternate explanation, it doesn't present any new argument against the preex of Christ. Again, See 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13. What does it denote here? What does it denote in Jn1?

Ron Macy stated:

All of this is what the logos is.

I like Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 46:9-10.
"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

His words suggest to me what I have been saying. God had this plan in mind before the beginning of time. Just because God knew Jesus would exist, it doesn’t mean Jesus had a conscious existence from before the beginning of time.

See (immediately following vs14) Jn1:15, 27, 30. What does this necessitate? You mentioned the "plan of God". We see in Jn1:23 that John the Baptist came 'first', so to speak, in the plan of God's revelation of the Messiah (See Jn1:31). Furthermore, we see in Luke2:57 that John the Baptist was born prior to Christ as well. With this in mind, we can accurately interpret the implications of said vss. I know the common reply, but rather than assume in advance your response, I'll wait for your reply before commenting further. Thanks.

God bless--IronMetro

AVmetro

September 22nd 2003, 12:25 AM

09-13-2003 @ 09:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210998#post210998)
Ron Macy:

IronMetro,

I have only two things to say.

1. I am jealous.

2. You must have needed it.

Thanks, too, for editing out the first of the double post. I really appreciate it.

Ron

No, I certainly don't deserve it :smile:. Although I'm a bit young for it, probably just a heart attack making it's way around the corner :smile:.

Ron Macy

September 24th 2003, 09:20 PM

IronMetro

You wrote,

Yet I am not arguing from MY perspective. I am arguing from yours. Under my view, the LogoV is preexistant deity who is with God [the Father]. There isn't a need for discernment as theos in 1b, in my view, is simply the Father.

I must admit, this statement brought me considerable confusion. I was positive this discussion about the name of God was your presentation of your ideas and not your presentation of my inconsistencies. Here is the sequence I found relating to the "name" of God piece of the discussion.

In post#22 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=157722#post157722), you wrote.

John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus.

In post#35 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=163153#post163153), I wrote

Your statement, "John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus," is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren't there. Since the name of Jesus isn't mentioned until verse 17 and the mention of Jesus' birth isn't until verse 14, I don't believe Jesus should be read 'back' into verse 12. I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

In post#57 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=172968#post172968), you wrote,

I simply turned your own argument around. You have insisted that I'm 'assuming' that the 'name' of the Word is "Jesus". Yet you in turn assert that the "name" is that of 'God'. You support your rebuttal of my view by pointing out that the name "Jesus" does not appear in the context under discussion. However, you may also note that there is no warrant for claiming that the "name" is that of 'God'. Where is this in the immediate context? What necessitates your view over mine? That is your 'assumption' I was pointing out.

In post#70 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=196382#post196382), you wrote,

Yet in my reply you have quoted, I explained why two of the three possible antecedents were not valid. I restate; John the Baptist came to witness to the LogoV . That eliminates that option. Earlier, the logoV is said to be with God (Cf..vs18). If we take "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' then that option is also eliminated.

I think those are the pertinent quotes. It seems to go back to your unfounded (in my opinion) assertion the logos is named, Jesus, in John 1:12.
I pointed out the lack of foundation for the assertion.
You said I had no foundation for believing the name in v. 12 was that of God.
I stated the use of God in the previous verses was foundation for believing the name was that of God.
You seem to be saying taking "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' eliminates God as an antecedent.
You are not arguing from MY perspective when you eliminate "God" as the antecedent. I see no logical reason to eliminate "God" as the antecedent. The plan can certainly be with God and have the same character as God without being a person.

As far as I am concerned, this discussion about the 'name' has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had a sentient existence before his birth.

I wrote,

What you need to provide is clear, explicit teaching from the scripture that someone has had sentient existence before their birth. I believe you have assumed sentient existence before birth is possible without having explicit scriptures to support the idea. So, it is not I who has to prove Jesus did not preexist. It is you who must prove He did preexist. So far, you haven't. (At least in my opinion.)

To which you responded,

I can't think of this as gbeing anything other than a red herring. See Jezz's post addressing this. The argument only swings both ways. The same applies to God's omni-"x" and eternality of YHWH. That is, I cannot find such in nature ergo it must not be true of YHWH. The reasoning fails. The problem is, there are numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethlehem. It is only the detractors interpretation of these passages sans any scriptural support that states otherwise.

By calling my request a "red herring" are you attempting to get around not supplying scripture to prove someone has had a sentient existence before his birth? I hope not. When it comes to the "numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethelem," we have, so far, only considered John 1. I have shown it does not have to teach sentient existence before birth.

Now, if you want to consider existence in the mind of God before birth, I believe the Bible supports that.

I wrote Jezz,

Your mention of omnipotence and omniscience as not revealed in nature is unsupported. You (or I) may not have the logic thought out, but I believe it is there. If it isn't, then Romans 1 can't be trusted as truth. As an example, I believed for years God had in some way revealed Himself to whatever back corner, tribal people you might mention. I had no idea how until I read Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson.

The follow-up portion is more important, though. The Bible does describe God as being omnipotent and omniscient. I am asking for the same kind of explicit statements we have on these doctrines in the Bible for the multi-personal doctrine you teach.

Jezz responded in
post#81 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=203564#post203564),

Actually, it doesn't. Neither of these words appear in either the NIV. And only "omnipotent" appears in the KJV - and even then, only once. And this fact will actually allow me to demonstrate the flaw in your methodology.

I am not sure Jezz understood exactly what he was saying with this piece of logic. If you look closely, you will recognize the argument, "The Bible doesn't teach trinity because the word, trinity, is not in the Bible." You wouldn't accept that if I tried to use it, I don't know why I should accept the same kind of argument from either of you.

Romans 1:18-20 tells us what can be known about God is evident in us and in God's creation. Paul said, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made." How is the triune nature of God "clearly seen" in us or in creation? Do I believe you or Paul?

You see, in my response to Jezz, I didn't rely on nature only to prove the eternity of God. I do go to the Bible for support of the "omnis." There are clear teachings of God's omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. What I haven't seen and you haven't provided is clear teaching anyone can have a sentient existence before their birth.

I continue to assert, if you don't have clear teaching on the sentient existence before birth or the multi-personal nature of an being, you have no reason to read those ideas into your interpretation of the scripture. You can claim this is a red herring and ignore it, but honest people will know you and Jezz haven't proven your point.

You wrote,

Yet confusing it is nonetheless. The only "laws of God" I know of are those found in the Torah i.e. the Mosaic Law.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

You wrote,

What needs to be settled is whether or not this is what 'LogoV' in Jn1 denotes. Granted that it does denote this what is to say that it does not speak of Christ as the "plan of God" as it does in 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 without the a priori assumption that Christ did not preexist?

I am not sure what you were trying to say with your "Granted..." sentence.

Please, note, I do not have an "a priori assumption that Christ did not preexist."
Neither do I have an "a priori assumption" that Christ did preexist.

So far, the evidence presented that John 1 teaches the preexistence of Jesus is not satisfying. I believe the alternative I have presented is an extremely viable interpretation of the passage without inserting Biblically unsubstantiated ideas.

You wrote,

Even as an alternate explanation, it doesn't present any new argument against the preex of Christ. Again, See 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13. What does it denote here? What does it denote in Jn1?

I don't see anything in 1 John 1:1-2 which proves the pre-birth sentience of Jesus.
Again, simply because Jesus is called "The Word of God" in Revelation does not prove pre-birth sentience.

You wrote,

See (immediately following vs14) Jn1:15, 27, 30. What does this necessitate? You mentioned the "plan of God". We see in Jn1:23 that John the Baptist came 'first', so to speak, in the plan of God's revelation of the Messiah (See Jn1:31). Furthermore, we see in Luke2:57 that John the Baptist was born prior to Christ as well. With this in mind, we can accurately interpret the implications of said vss. I know the common reply, but rather than assume in advance your response, I'll wait for your reply before commenting further.

15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

27 "It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

John the Baptist said the Messiah is higher in rank than himself. Is that the "common reply?"

Ron

AVmetro

September 24th 2003, 09:32 PM

Hello Ron and thanks for the reply! I'll read your response, form my comments and get back with you as time permits. Thanks.

God bless you,
IronMetro

Socrates

October 1st 2003, 09:38 PM

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It
is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on
whose account the earth trembled!

He who hung the earth in place is hanged.
He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.
He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree.
The Sovereign is insulted.
God is murdered.
The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.

This is the One who made the heavens and the earth,
and formed mankind in the beginning,
The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets,
The One enfleshed in a virgin,
The One hanged on a tree,
The One buried in the earth,
The One raised from the dead
and who went up into the heights of heaven,
The One sitting at the right hand of the Father,
The One having all authority to judge and save,
Through Whom the Father made the things which exist
from the beginning of time.

This One is “the Alpha and the Omega,”
This One is “the beginning and the end”
—the beginning indescribable and the end incomprehensible.
This One is the Christ.
This One is the King.
This One is Jesus.
This One is the Leader.
This One is the Lord.
This One is the One who rose from the dead.
This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
“To him be the glory and the power forever.
Amen.”

AVmetro

October 1st 2003, 10:15 PM

socrates-

That piece is an excellent demonstration of love for our Lord and Savior. I had seen that cited in James White's book, 'The Forgotten Trinity'. Is that where you got it?

God bless--AV

Socrates

October 2nd 2003, 12:13 AM

AV

Good pickup! Indeed, it came from White, but I extracted it from the article I posted at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=229334#post229334

Blessings in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
~Soc.

Ron Macy

October 13th 2003, 11:47 AM

AVMetro,

How is the response to my post coming?

Ron

AVmetro

October 13th 2003, 06:24 PM

Ron Macy:

AVMetro,

How is the response to my post coming?

Ron

Thanks for the reminder! Let me dig it out and type it up real quick. I've been spending a good deal of time on an e-list and have been neglecting my duties here..
:pile:

AVmetro

October 13th 2003, 07:10 PM

Hi, Ron-

(*forgive any spelling errors)

Ron Macy stated:

I must admit, this statement brought me considerable confusion. I was positive this discussion about the name of God was your presentation of your ideas and not your presentation of my inconsistencies. Here is the sequence I found relating to the "name" of God piece of the discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean. I do not see how presenting both would be confusing. I present my rgument, you supply a rebuttal whereas I in turn critique it. Isn't that standard procedure?

I'll provide comments to each of the below quotations of myself (and you) as I may have not been all too clear:

In post#22 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=157722#post157722), you wrote.

John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus.

You argued that the Logos was simly the "plan" of God. I pointed out the fact that the Logos had a 'name' prior to vs14 which would entail a personal nature in most cases. The fact that this name is employed in the salvic process tells me the case is not a figurative one.

In post#35 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=163153#post163153), I wrote

Your statement, "John 1:12 (preceding vs14) even tells us the "name" of the 'Logos' - Jesus," is extremely misleading. You should not let your enthusiasm for the trinity bring you to reading things into the Word of God which aren't there. Since the name of Jesus isn't mentioned until verse 17 and the mention of Jesus' birth isn't until verse 14, I don't believe Jesus should be read 'back' into verse 12. I believe it is more reasonable to consider the name in which people are to believe is the name of God.

Here you argue that the name is not that of Jesus on the interesting basis that the name is not found within the immediate context. I replied that the name of God is ''YHWH'' and is not found in the immediate context. Therefore in order to demonstrate the double standard I had seen in your argument, I stated the following as you quoted me:

In post#57 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=172968#post172968), you wrote,

I simply turned your own argument around. You have insisted that I'm 'assuming' that the 'name' of the Word is "Jesus". Yet you in turn assert that the "name" is that of 'God'. You support your rebuttal of my view by pointing out that the name "Jesus" does not appear in the context under discussion. However, you may also note that there is no warrant for claiming that the "name" is that of 'God'. Where is this in the immediate context? What necessitates your view over mine? That is your 'assumption' I was pointing out.

In the above I pointed out that God's name "YHWH is not found in the prologue. As memory serves, you argued that "God" in the prologue is a "personal name" and that THIS is the antecedent of vs12. In reply to your argument I stated the following:

In post#70 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=196382#post196382), you wrote,

Yet in my reply you have quoted, I explained why two of the three possible antecedents were not valid. I restate; John the Baptist came to witness to the LogoV . That eliminates that option. Earlier, the logoV is said to be with God (Cf..vs18). If we take "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' then that option is also eliminated.

>

Ron Macy stated:

I think those are the pertinent quotes. It seems to go back to your unfounded (in my opinion) assertion the logos is named, Jesus, in John 1:12.

I pointed out the lack of foundation for the assertion.

The salvic efficiency of believing on the "name" (Cf. Jn20:30) is substantiation in itself. IMHO, "name" by this one reason itself, denotes Jesus.

Ron Macy stated:

You said I had no foundation for believing the name in v. 12 was that of God.
I stated the use of God in the previous verses was foundation for believing the name was that of God.

You seem to be saying taking "God" in this context to denote a 'personal name' eliminates God as an antecedent.

Not exactly. Either way I believe it is excluded. I argued that the Logos being WITH the "God" of John 1:1a (the Father) excluded Him from being the antecedent in vs12.

Ron Macy stated:

You are not arguing from MY perspective when you eliminate "God" as the antecedent. I see no logical reason to eliminate "God" as the antecedent. The plan can certainly be with God and have the same character as God without being a person.

As far as I am concerned, this discussion about the 'name' has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had a sentient existence before his birth.

Yet I have to assume this possibility for it to work. And this is the only way it *could* work as I see it. Otherwise, "God" in Jn1:1a is excluded as an antecedent.

Ron Macy stated:
I wrote,

What you need to provide is clear, explicit teaching from the scripture that someone has had sentient existence before their birth. I believe you have assumed sentient existence before birth is possible without having explicit scriptures to support the idea. So, it is not I who has to prove Jesus did not preexist. It is you who must prove He did preexist. So far, you haven't. (At least in my opinion.)

To which you responded,

I can't think of this as gbeing anything other than a red herring. See Jezz's post addressing this. The argument only swings both ways. The same applies to God's omni-"x" and eternality of YHWH. That is, I cannot find such in nature ergo it must not be true of YHWH. The reasoning fails. The problem is, there are numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethlehem. It is only the detractors interpretation of these passages sans any scriptural support that states otherwise.

By calling my request a "red herring" are you attempting to get around not supplying scripture to prove someone has had a sentient existence before his birth? I hope not. When it comes to the "numerous passages which speak of Christ as preexisting His birth in Bethelem," we have, so far, only considered John 1. I have shown it does not have to teach sentient existence before birth.

I don't need to prove that someone has preexisted. Just one, Christ. In my view, Christ is entirely unique in these regards. There are plenty of verses to support this, Jn6:62 being another example. I haven't assumed anything. I have simply read scripture as it is written.

Ron Macy stated:

Now, if you want to consider existence in the mind of God before birth, I believe the Bible supports that.

As to the above, I believe so as well. See, for example, Jer1:5. However, as I made the point before, there are instances in scripture where the interpretation of "existence in the mind of God", merely, will patently fail. I had cited Heb1:10-12 as one such example. All argument aside, IF Heb1:10-12 applies to Christ, would you concede that such a reference could not simply speak of "mental thought" and therefore must necessarily entail that Christ preexisted?

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,

Yet confusing it is nonetheless. The only "laws of God" I know of are those found in the Torah i.e. the Mosaic Law.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

If it's a new commandment under the Messianic age, then it is not relevant to Jn1:12 (proceeding it's declaration in Jn13:34).

...8<...

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,

Even as an alternate explanation, it doesn't present any new argument against the preex of Christ. Again, See 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13. What does it denote here? What does it denote in Jn1?

I don't see anything in 1 John 1:1-2 which proves the pre-birth sentience of Jesus.
Again, simply because Jesus is called "The Word of God" in Revelation does not prove pre-birth sentience.

What it does is identify Christ as the 'Logos' of Jn1-12. It yields further weight to the "name" being that of Christ. In any case, it shifts the burden your way to demonstrate that the Logos in the Apostle John's gospel is a different denotation than in the same Apostle John's epistle and apocalypse.

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,

See (immediately following vs14) Jn1:15, 27, 30. What does this necessitate? You mentioned the "plan of God". We see in Jn1:23 that John the Baptist came 'first', so to speak, in the plan of God's revelation of the Messiah (See Jn1:31). Furthermore, we see in Luke2:57 that John the Baptist was born prior to Christ as well. With this in mind, we can accurately interpret the implications of said vss. I know the common reply, but rather than assume in advance your response, I'll wait for your reply before commenting further.

15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

27 "It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

John the Baptist said the Messiah is higher in rank than himself. Is that the "common reply?"

Yes. You have overlooked the reason "why" Christ is of a 'higher rank' than John the Baptist. The Baptist states this reason explicitly. See my first reply in these regards. Christ is of a higher rank than John the Baptist BECAUSE He {as you translation puts it} "..existed before me."

God bless you--AVmetro

Frank4YAHWEH

September 3rd 2008, 06:35 PM

No, Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem.

YahwehDOTcanDOTcom

Please do not advertise your website (or another) in your post. Your signature line is convenient for this purpose.

carelinks

September 4th 2008, 05:34 AM

Hi AvMetro
I noticed your appeal to Jn. 6:62. Here's my take:

The Lord's language of coming down from Heaven can be understood from a very powerful devotional aspect. He reasons that because He had come down from Heaven, therefore, whoever comes to Him, He would never reject (Jn. 6:37,38). The connection is in the word "come". We 'come' to Jesus not by physically travelling towards Him, but in our mental attitudes. He likewise 'comes' to us, not by moving trillions of kilometers from Heaven to earth, but in His 'coming' down into our lives and experiences. If He has come so very far to meet us, and we come to Him... then surely we will meet and He will not turn away from us, exactly because He has 'come' so far to meet us. This theme continues throughout John's Gospel. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn. 6:62) is therefore not a reference to Him physically travelling off anywhere- He is saying that if people would not 'come' to Him in meeting, then He would withdraw the opportunity from them. He wouldn't stand waiting for them indefinitely. This explains the urgency behind His appeals to 'come' to Him. He had 'come down', and was waiting for people to 'come' to Him. He's come a huge distance, from the heavenly heights of His own spirituality, to meet with whores and gamblers, hobby level religionists, self-absorbed little people... and if we truly come to Him, if we want to meet with Him, then of course He will never turn us away. For it was to meet with us that He 'came down'. This approach shows the fallacy of interpreting His 'coming down' to us and our 'coming' to Him in a literal sense.

And yet this Lord of all grace also sought to confirm men and women in the path they chose. He admitted that His comment about Himself being the manna which descended from Heaven was a "hard saying". And yet He goes straight on to say [perhaps with a slight smile playing at the corner of His lips] something even more enigmatic: "What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn. 6:62). Surely He is here chosing to give them yet another, even harder "saying"; and goes on to stress that His sayings, His words, are the way to life eternal (Jn. 6:63). For those who didn't want His words, He was confirming them in their darkness. And He did this by the mechanism of using an evidently "hard saying". Therefore to simplistically interpret the saying as meaning that the Lord had literally descended from Heaven through the sky just as literally as He would ascend there through the clouds... is in fact to quite miss the point- that this is a "hard saying". It's not intended to have a simplistic, literalistic interpretation.

Best wishes

Ducnan

IncRus

September 4th 2008, 02:45 PM

Many believe He did (e.g. Trinitarians, JWs, Mormons et al). Some do not (e.g. Christadelphians, et al).

I hold the view that He did. In this thread I would like to discuss, in particular, the prologue of John {1:1-18}, the first chapter of Hebrews {1:1-13) in addition to a few others as I believe these emphatically demonstrate that Christ preexisted His entrance into the world of humanity.

I have argued my postion on Jn1:1 here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=686) if one needs something to work with.

God bless

To those who believe that Jesus pre-existed his birth in Bethlehem, the question that begs Biblical answer is - what was he before his birth in Bethlehem?

Was he God? Definitely not!

John 1:1 does not refer specifically to Jesus. John, being a Jew, would have gone AGAINST his belief that there is only one God if he had Jesus in mind when he wrote, "the word was WITH God and WAS God. Therefore, it is absurd to suppose that John was referring to Jesus.

I agree with the Christadelphians that John could have been referring to God's SPOKEN word concerning His PLAN to send Jesus into the world.

Was he Michael the archangel? Definityely not! There is NOTHING in the Bible that says he was!

The ONLY way Jesus could have pre-existed before his birth in Bethlem was by his having been "FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last time for you" (1 Peter 1:20).

Okieshowedem

September 4th 2008, 08:58 PM

The only pre'existing false savior this deceived worlds knows is Jesus The Christ of the Christian religion.
This very name of this false savior is an abomimanation to all the Hebrew prophets and the apostles of the Real Messiah.
This name " Jesus Christ" is a figment of the Christian religion's teaching that started with the first Pope.
Should you truly want to know the truth about what the Hebrew Messiah's Name is, start with the Sabbath.
Since most Christians go to Church on Sunday they already have the mark of the beast on them.
How very sad that so many say they want to know the truth but are to lazy to study their own Bibles.
There is a secret given in IsaYAH 2:2 and MicahYAH 4:1 that will help all who have eyes to see, understand how Satan has dceceived the whole world with the Christian religion. Rev.12:9.

Now to Him to Whom honor belongs both now and forever
be praise from His children.

Hallelu-YAHWEH!

Okieshowedem

Bill the Cat

September 4th 2008, 09:00 PM

Ormly

September 6th 2008, 09:36 AM

Okieshowedem

September 6th 2008, 10:04 PM

John 1:1-5 Translated from the Greek LOGOS-meaning something said including the thoughts; by implication: a topic or subject of set discourse; also reasoning with the mental faculties, and motive. Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Page 380-382.
This Greek word LOGOS shows to be itself the Greek translation of the original Hebrew word DABAR, which means: Yahweh's revealed will, His WHOLE PLAN and purpose for mankind.
The Interperter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 4, Page 870-871.
Some of the most blatant MISUNDERSTANDING and DECEIT has arisen because of John 1:1-5
These five verses of the Scriptures are used to justify the PAGAN concept of the Trinity that still exist in the religions of today; trying to justify the doctrine that Yahshua Messiah "pre-existed" that it Yahshua Who was being referred to as the WORD, that Yahshua was a god (el) previously, and now, Yahshua Messiah is the god (el) of the "new testament". All this is due to the translators' lack of Spiritual Understanding, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity by Samuel Sharpe, page 13-14, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Bablyonias by A.H. Sayce Pages 229-230, A Statement of Reason for Not Believing the Doctrine of Trinttrans by Andrews Norton, page 94.

Sad thing is most Christian I know are to lazy to study for themselves as they are instructed to do, they allow their Church doctrine to deceived them into believing the great lie.

Okieshowedem

Ormly

September 7th 2008, 05:03 AM

There are two words that must, of necessity, be interjected and distinctions carefully made betwen them.

1, Reality, as being the domain of the Father.

2. Actuality, those things spoken into existence from the reality of God. Things given to man to touch that explain Him; His "Reality"

Now, In this we can see Jesus. The "Word" became flesh. . . . . .Reality became Actuality.

" And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 (NASB) He will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Him whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. (Zechariah 12:10 (NASB) Emphasis added

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 (KJV)

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." John 20:17 (KJV)

"The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." John 20:25-27 (KJV)

Bill the Cat

September 7th 2008, 01:45 PM

mudcake

September 8th 2008, 07:13 AM

Jewish thought about the Memra of God in the targums and wisdom doctrine have nothing to do with the erroneous idea of God’s wisdom or Logos subsisting from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'person' along God Almighty, neither the idea that within God exists three distinct persons that form one divine being as conjectured in Trinitarian theology.

The Word of God did not subsisted as a distinct person alongside God Almighty according to the OT biblical history as some Trinitarians conjecture. I am very familiar with Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) theology as exemplified in the speculative and conjectural ancient rabbinical thought. It appears however you don’t understand these concepts and their usage within the Targums. THe Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) of God did not subsist as a distinct self conscious person alongside God Almighty.

In the Targums, the word of God, memra, is often substituted where the text of the bible speaks of God anthropomorphically. The Jews erroneously interpreted these anthropomorphic examples of God as resembling his creation, which is the first mistake they made. In erroneously comparing the anthropomorphic action of God to the similtudes of his creation, they conjectured a personified abstraction/concept of the divine presence and power of God to keep God from seeming to come too close with man and creation. It was a conjectural framework aimed to preserve God's transcendence. Do your reaserch Sparko, the Memra/Debar was not conceived as a distinct 'hypostasis' or 'person' that subsisted alongside God Almighty, according to ancient rabbinical thought.

A Trinitarian proclaims:

Before He incarnated down to this world, Christ was -and still IS, the pre-incarnate WORD (or Logos) of God, through which God created all things.

Trinitarians like Old Shepherd advance forth forth with a erroneous presumption that God's Word actually subsisted as a self conscious, self aware 'person' that conversed with God Almighty from eternity. OT biblical history knew nothing of the existence of God's Word that emanated from Himself that existed as a distinct divine 'person' identified as a 'Son of God'. An adherence to belief that God's Word subsisted as a divine 'person' alongside God almighty sharing the same essence of divinity is polytheism in the highest degee.

The idea that God's Word/Memra/Debar subisted from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'PERSON' alongsie God Almighty is an erroneous innovation conjectured by a sect of misguided Jews who professed to be so-called followers of Christ that marked the distinct mutation away from biblical monotheism. Before Jesus appeared on earth, Wisdom/Logos was personified, when Jesus appeared on earth, the Wisdom/Logos was now erroneously literally interpreted in Jesus as pre-existing and subsisting from eternity as a distinct 'PERSON' alongside God Almighty. This is a manifestation of polytheism, not clarified biblical monotheism.

The Christian Christological experience and interpretation of Jesus as the actual pre-existing Word of God as a distinct 'PERSON' traces the Genesis of the erronesous transition and innovation of the Wisdom/Logos philosophical/conjectural mode of thought from personification of the Word to the interpretation of the Word as an actual distinct self conscious 'Person!' subsisting from eternity.

Jesus was not The Word of God, neither was the 'word of God' subsisting as a 'son of God' in OT biblical history..... Jesus was created by The Word of God.

"Behold! The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "BE". And he was. " (Qur’an 3:59).

What was personified in Greek/Jewish Wisdom/Logos/Memra philosophical modes of thought in OT biblical history - God's wisdom/Logos - was now erroneously interpreted literally as a distinct divine 'person' that subsisted from eternity, which consequently prepared the articulation and foundations for the dubious idea that 'one God' subsists as three distinct 'persons' that form one divine being.

A trinitarian claimed:

God and His Word are ONE and can never be separated from eternity,
So, when God's eternal Word came down to this world, it left God and descended to the Earth but at the same time without leaving Him.

Yes, but the fundamental flaw in his theological conjecture is that God's Word never subsisted as a self conscious 'person' that existed and conversed with God Almighty from eternity. OT biblical history knows nothing of the myth that trinitarians erroneously propogate here. The false idea was begotten when misguided Jews who professed to believe in Jesus miscontrued the identity of Jesus as 'divine' by believing he pre-existed as God's word in NT times.

A trinitarian said:

It is the same as when I speak, my word proceeded from and left me, thats why people can hear them, AND YET AT THE VERY SAME TIME, my word still remains in me and with me and can never be separated from me.

No It's not the same LOL... his dubious analogy is as flawed as his bogus argumentation.

Does our word exist as a self conscious and self aware 'person' or 'figure' that speaks/converses with us? LOl.... NO!

Erroneously, postulating that God's Word existed as a personal 'Son of God' that shared the same essence of divnity with God Almighty translates as the worship of at least two eternal and distinct personal Gods, not the 'one God'.

The Gospel of John is a bogus Gospel that mostly reflects the personal spiritual self perception of what the author(s) believed about Jesus, not what Jesus believed about himself.

The Author(s) were merely conveying and interpreting their experience and traditions of Jesus through their distorted perceptions and preconceptions that reflects their Jewish Wisdom/Logos mode of thought and expressions.

The Personified Wisdom literature/narratives were applied (midrash) as a contextual and exegetical framework to interpret the person of Jesus as the perfect ‘image’ or emissary that represented or exemplified the will of God’s creative thought or word as typified in the Old Testament.

The fact that the fundamental objective of applying the Jewish wisdom modes of thought was to conceptualize how Jesus exemplified, represented, typified, illustrated, demonstrated, personifed the will or thought of God embodied in God’s Word (Logos) explains one reason why ‘Logos’ and not ‘wisdom’ is employed as the appropriate literary term/device, since the primary focus is God Almighty’s Word, that embodies the expression of His Wisdom, his will and power, and the outgoing of the divine energy, life, love and light manifested toward his creation.

The infusion of ancient personified Jewish wisdom thought and Hellenic Logos ideas formulated very speculative and powerful influential ways of interpreting God’s relationship to his creation, which transparently shaped the very perception and articulation of the Logos theology of Philo. The same set of influences that shaped Philo’s conception of the personified Logos as a ‘ son of God’ can also be evidently seen in the articulation of the Logos Christology and Sonship derived from the Gospel of John.

Whether the similarities in concept and expression seen in the Gospel of John was the directly result or influence by the conjectural theology of Philo - is debatable, but not easily dismissed see why - http://www.socinian.org/philo.html

However, what is transparently clear is that both authors utilized/adapted the same speculative theological modes of thought and articulation that originated prior to Jesus birth and prevailed during their respective times, which reflects the significant similitude in their thought patterns and mode of expressions.

As a Trinitarian old shepherd, you advance with the bogus assumption that ‘the WORD of God’ becoming flesh implies the attribute of God – His Word - was actually an eternal self conscious personal ‘figure’ that pre-existed with God Almighty as a ‘Son of God’ that descended from heaven to incarnate or dwell in human flesh.

The questions that need to be raised on the outset are - Was the ‘Logos’ or ‘Word of God’ according to Jewish thought or biblical history ever presented as a actual self-conscious distinct personal figure or 'person' that subsisted from eternity with God Almighty that shared the same essence of divinity?

Philo describes the LOGOS (word) of God as a personified/allegorical/metaphorical first-begotten ‘son’ of God, not as an actual distinct self conscious personal figure or 'person' as erroneously conjectured by later Trinitarian thought. Keep this critical point in mind

Philo's Jewish monotheistic instinct was too strong to postulate that a distinct personal self conscious figure subsisted with God that possessed it’s own self awareness sharing the same ontological equality with God.

From a Jewish perspective, as long as God’s Logos or Wisdom was postulated as a personification and not literally as a self conscious ‘person, then theologically, these personified/allegorical conceptualizations generally fell within the borders of Jewish/biblical monotheism.

From a Jewish perspective, the most extreme instances in which Ancient Judaism assigned ‘personhood’ to an attribute or aspect of God is through the poetical mode of personification.

WHAT IS PERSONIFICATION ?

Personification, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as

“A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form.”

Personification of God’s attributes – His Word and Wisdom - represents a POETIC literary tool that is NOT intended to be taken literally. Literal interpretations would convey an altogether different, erroneous, and absurd meaning, but that is exactly what is commonly done with the ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom’ of God by polytheistic Trinitarians.

The fact that the Word or Wisdom of God, in the bible, is presented AS IF a 'person' - figure of speech - through the mode of personification, does not change the literal fact that God’s word is only an attribute that does not possess its own self awareness.

Jewish thought had its own hypothetical/postulated intermediary figure going back centuries, certainly as old as Plato. For the Jews, in comparison to the Hellenic thought, God never became quite so inaccessible, but among the scribes of the period following the Exile, God was presented, THROUGH HUMAN CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION, as making himself known and working in the world through a part of himself they called LADY “Wisdom”.

From a Jewish perspective however, Personified Wisdom was presented as coming to earth, although there was never any Jewish thought of wisdom being ACTUALLY perceived as a real self conscious person, neither the being of God or his personified wisdom as being physically or literally incarnated in creation or actually in human flesh. This critical fact you must understand.

Here is what the Old Testament Book of Proverbs has to say about personified wisdom identified as ‘lady wisdom’ (wisdom linguistically is a feminine noun. Grammatically it would be incorrect to use feminine nouns as masculine, hence why wisdom is poetically personified as a ‘she’, not a ‘he’)

“By the gate, Wisdom calls aloud: ‘Men, it is to you I call . . . I am Wisdom, I bestow shrewdness, and show the way to knowledge and prudence . . . The Lord possessed me from the beginning of his works . . . when he set the heavens in their place I was there . . . I was at the Lord’s side each day . . . Happy is the man who keeps to my ways.” (From 8:1-36)

Two important aspects of Wisdom are featured here.

First, personified Wisdom is “pre-existent,” that is, wisdom, WHICH IN REALITY IS MERELY AN ATTRIBUTE OF GOD that has been symbolized/personified as a metaphorical person, was with God in heaven subsisting before the creation of the world. And wisdom is associated with God in that work. In reality, what this really means without the poetic mode of personification is God possesses divine wisdom from eternity and used his wisdom to create the heavens and earth.

An earlier verse, 3:19, makes it clear that Wisdom serves as an instrument in the process of creation:

“In wisdom the Lord founded the earth and by understanding he set the heavens in their place.”

The book of Baruch 3:37 (written centuries before Jesus birth) gives us a line which, even though Wisdom was originally intended as a reference to the ‘word of God’ –The Torah - may have had a profound influence on the future:

“Thereupon wisdom appeared on earth and dwelled among men.”

Was this one of the footsteps on the path to bringing a different “aspect” of God—the Son—down to earth? Has the author of John 1:1-14 adapted personified Jewish wisdom or Logos motifs (the infusion of both thoughts as did Philo) as an exegetical framework to present the incarnation of the Logos?: “So the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.” (1:14) ?????

Yes he did!!!

On the other hand, the writer of one of the documents, which went into the composite 1 Enoch, end product of some first century Jewish apocalyptic sect, took a more pessimistic view of personified Wisdom’s residence on earth (42:1-2):

“Then wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling-place. So wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels.”

Did Greek philosophy influence the early evolution of the Jewish Wisdom figure? It’s difficult to tell. But by the time we get to the Wisdom of Solomon composed PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS influenced by Hellenic thought PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS we can see a clear and exotic blending of Wisdom motifs used to represent the Logos of God. Wisdom is now the divine power active in the world, the spirit that pervades and governs all things. She is the Logos, but without the name. She is God’s “throne-partner,” a step away from the similitude of Christ sitting at the right hand of God as recorded in the New Testament. She, too, is pre-existent, an agent of creation.

And consider this passage from 7:22-30:

“. . . she rises from the power of God, a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty . . . She is the brightness that streams from everlasting light, the flawless mirror of the active power of God and the image of his goodness . . . She spans the world in power from end to end, and orders all things benignly.”

Such thinking is clearly reflected in those opening verses of the Epistle to the Hebrew in the New Testament, defining the nature of the Son as “the effulgence of God’s splendor,” the image of God and the sustainer of the universe.

According to Trinitarian translation/interpretation, Colossians 1:15-20is also stamped with the same kind of wisdom imagery as well: the Son as the pre-existent image of God, a force, which created the universe and now holds it together.

DO YOU SEE HOW THESE PERVERTED INFLUENCES CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS FORMULATING THE ERRONEOUS TRINITARIAN CHRISTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF JESUS YOU IGNORANTLY BELIEVE...

The Wisdom of Solomon or ‘the book of wisdom’ that was heavy infused with Greek Hellenic thought, prior to the birth of Jesus, also shows us that the time was ripe for the Logos and Wisdom to make a journey into the world. After the Exile, among both Jews and Greeks, the need for a transcendent God to interact in the affairs of his people was poetically expressed through their desire for God to send his representative, his revealer or mediator was being acutely felt. So much of the world was devastated. Wars, strife and evil spirits seemed to be winning. Humanity desperately looked for aid, direction and outright salvation. The need is reflected in poetic modes of expression like these, although this writer’s comments is one of optimism (Wisdom of Solomon, 9:10):

“Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from thy glorious throne bid her come down, so that she may labor at my side and I may learn what pleases thee.”

Were the Jews actually supplicating to God’s attribute that was actually a distinct self conscious ‘person’ identified as lady wisdom to come from the clouds? Where they supplicating to an actual personal being or deity besides God Almighty to descend from heaven to help them? Absolutely not!!!!

REMEMBER THE CRITICAL POINT ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF PERSONIFICATION:

The fact that the Word or Wisdom of God, in the bible, is presented as if a person - figure of speech - through the mode of personification, does not change the literal fact that God’s word is only or actually an attribute that does not possess its own self awareness.

Personification is a merely a perverted human conjecture that speculates or imagines through poetic modes of expression and human imagery how God Almighty might interact with his creation.

In some Jewish circles, personified Wisdom was seen as doing just that. She was thought of as sending “envoys,” entrusting them with teachings which revealed God, his wishes and his workings. In reality, (without personification) what this really means is that God was sending his revelations through angels or scriptures to mankind to guide them in the ways of their Lord.

It is important to examine Jewish post-canonical writings that outline the two theological developments that are derived from the personified Wisdom literature:

(1)The personification of Wisdom that is represented figuratively/metaphorically allegorically as IF a ‘person’ subsisting as a heavenly figure dwelling in heaven with God Almighty; and

(2) explicit identification of wisdom with the "Word," Torah, or Proverbs as special revelation.

Both of these developments find most explicit expression in literature written after the close of the Old Testament canon, but prior to the birth of Jesus, in certain apocryphal books.

In spite of their literary, apocryphal context, those developments retain great importance, both for illuminating the bridge to and background for the New Testament Christological interpretation of Jesus.

The authors of the New Testament are erroneously speaking of Jesus in exactly the same language or personified imagery as we find in the broader philosophical world, both Greek and Jewish.

Their idea of the spiritual Son has absorbed both the features and roles of the Logos - http://www.socinian.org/philo.html and personified Wisdom that originated centuries prior to the birth of Jesus.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...34/ai_n8689929 (refer to Larry Hurtado book "One Lord..."

In reading the New Testament and imagining the New Testament writers as being inspired to a view of ‘God’s Son’, these authors are merely erroneously drawing on the prominent ideas of speculative ancient Jewish wisdom theology and the deeper ancient heritage infused with Hellenic though, which lay behind their distorted perception and interpretation of Jesus.

Irrespective to which of the diverse/contradictory/Christological interpretations of Jesus Christians believe in, the fundamental factor that connects all these diverse Christologies is that they all are significantly influenced and derived from the same personified Jewish/Greek speculative philosophies and conjectures that were used as templates/conceptualizations to erroneously interpret/express the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God Almighty.

These perverted Christologies derived from the NT reflect more what the alledged/professed follower believed about Jesus, not what Jesus perceived about his own self perception.

From an Islamic perspective, If you remove these erroneous human innovations, speculative philosophical conceptualizations that were erroneously applied to interpret the identity of Jesus, you will indeed recognize the true historical Jesus as Mighty Prophet and messenger of God Almighty and true Gospel of Jesus as proclaimed in the Quran:

"O People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! do not exaggerate in your religion: Nor say of God except the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Three" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one : Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."

"Christ does not distain to serve and worship God, nor do the angels, those nearest (to God): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself."

But to those who believe (have faith) AND do deeds of righteousness, He will give their rewards,- and more, out of His bounty: BUT THOSE WHO ARE DISDAINFUL AND ARROGANT, HE WILL PUNISH WITH A GRIEVIOUS PENALTY; NOR WILL THEY FIND, BESIDES GOD ANY TO PROTECT OR HELP THEM."

"Then those who believe in God, and hold fast to Him,- soon will He admit them to mercy and grace from Himself, and guide them to Himself by a straight way." (Quran - Sura 4:171-5)

In summary:

Christianity mutated away from the allegorical and symbolic personified expressions of God’s attributes by literalizing the interpretations of these concepts and personifications of the Logos of God as an actual pre-existing distinct person that dwelled in the human flesh of the man Jesus. As a result, God's attribute - His Word - transformed from personification to person that totally breeched Jewish/Biblical monotheism.

The attributes of God – including his His Word – was never conceptualized by the Children of Israel, the Prophets of God or in the OT to imply they were actual distinct ‘persons’ that co –existed with God Almighty from eternity that comprise the 'oneness' of his being. God’s attribute – His Word - carried certain cultural connotations beyond New Testament times, but there is no context outside of developing Christian doctrines in which God’s attribute – His Word - was regarded as an actual person that subsisted with God Almighty, Hence, the absence of any references in the Old Testament where God’s Attributes were conceptualized as actual distinct 'persons' that possessed their own self-awareness or individuality before they supposedly descended from heaven to incarnate in human flesh.

The Trinitarian articulation of the nature of God’s Word as a person incarnated in human flesh is purely a perverted revolutional innovation.

For a refutation of the doctrine of the trinity and the bogus 'Jewish wisdom' arguments commonly advocated by JP please refer to the following thread and offer counter rebuttals here-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=114577 enjoy !

The trinitarians i was debating have vanished into thin air !! LOL...

mud....

Ormly

September 8th 2008, 08:26 AM

The idea that God's Word/Memra/Debar subisted from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'PERSON' alongsie God Almighty is an erroneous innovation conjectured by a sect of misguided JewsHowever, He was never alongside God. He was the expression of God in form that gave out a certain sound that explained the Heart of God for creation to ever have happened. He spoke it into existence with His mouth, The Word of Himself. This is no different than one who speaks what his heart tells him to. Both must be in union/agreement for that to happen. Being humanly 'deaf and dumb' should have a fresh significance to us if we can see this as a tremendous limitation to one's very 'creative' ability.

Read carefully these three passage because they speak of a Reality that has become an Actuality

" I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, . . . . . ." Isaiah 42:8

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5 (KJV)

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; . . . ..." John 17:22-23 (KJV)

mudcake

September 9th 2008, 11:19 PM

However, He was never alongside God. He was the expression of God in form that gave out a certain sound that explained the Heart of God for creation to ever have happened. He spoke it into existence with His mouth, The Word of Himself. This is no different than one who speaks what his heart tells him to. Both must be in union/agreement for that to happen. Being humanly 'deaf and dumb' should have a fresh significance to us if we can see this as a tremendous limitation to one's very 'creative' ability.

Read carefully these three passage because they speak of a Reality that has become an Actuality

" I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, . . . . . ." Isaiah 42:8

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5 (KJV)

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; . . . ..." John 17:22-23 (KJV)

thank-you for sharing your thoughts Ormly..

Okieshowedem

September 12th 2008, 03:40 PM

To have a savior that pre-exist simples means you do not believe the Scriptures. Luke 24:25

Okieshowedem

Bill the Cat

September 12th 2008, 03:47 PM

To make a false prophecy means you are not from God.

Ormly

September 12th 2008, 04:06 PM

Here are few notes on the subject of the "Word":

Concerning the Word
The Word was simply the expression of God as your own lips are to our own heart, inseparable and that which communicates our will. . . . .)) Now when John speaks of the Word made flesh we have a better idea of what he was trying to convey. . . . and to put it all in perspective: John was speaking after the fact of the cross. Why I say that is because in vs14 he writes this: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 (KJV) He is here not only speaking of the transfiguration that he witnessed, but His resurrection and the forty days after the cross. Why the distinction? Before the cross there was nothing about Jesus that made Him stand out in the crowd. Had the Word been manifested as in Heaven, eyes would have been blinded. In the “subduing” of the Word, Jesus as a human was emphasized for reasons of demonstrating what man was purposed to be in Adam; the ultimate intention of the Father and how, by demonstrating the “way of the cross”, it would be possible for mankind to once again enter into the relationship Adam forfeited. After revealing the “way of it” Jesus proceeds to an actual cross to make it possible for us to succeed in life the same as He did; to become as He became, He being the Heir and we who are in Him, Joint-heirs.

Side note: Taking communion carries the significance of this as an emblem, recognition of the fact of intimacy contained in the elements.

Frank4YAHWEH

September 25th 2008, 02:42 PM

Sorry about posting a link to my web site in a reply. I had noted that others posted links in their replies on this forum and I guess a falsely assumed that it was acceptable to do so. I have posted a link to my web site in my signature as instructed.

No, Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem?

I do not espouse to the doctines "Deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus IS God!, Pre-existent Son, Eternal Son (in the sense that he always existed), God-Man, Holy Trinity (triune God), God the Son and and Yahweh set apart ("Holy") spirit as a seperate being. In fact, I do not refer to Yahweh our Heavenly Father and Creator or His son Yahshua as "God (Elohim) or "the LORD" (Adonai, Baal). I believe Yahshua to be the *Messiah the son of the living Yahweh.

*Anointed of His and our Father Yahweh (Yahshua did not anoint himself.)

I do not believe that Yahshua was comunicating ("praying") to himself in heaven when he was here on earth. I also do not believe that he raised (resurrected) himself from the dead but, I believe that it was his and our Father Yahweh Who raised and redeemed him from death.

Ormly

September 25th 2008, 05:46 PM

WoundedEgo

October 22nd 2009, 08:54 PM

My take on John 8:58 is that it should read thus:

"*I* am *before* Abraham is born."

It should be understood to say:

"I am [presently] *before* Abraham WILL be born!"

Note that NO OTHER READING IS POSSIBLE... since Jesus says that Abraham "looked foward to" the birthday of Jesus, saw it, and celebrated it!

Jesus did not see Abraham by being old, but rather, he saw Abraham because Abraham lived to see his birthday (in year 3).

The key to understanding John 8:58 is to know that "my day" means "my birthday."
This area is restricted to theists only

runtmc2jc

November 4th 2009, 07:27 PM

I think the preexistence of Christ is quite obvious. One of the most obvious passages to prove it is John 8:58 and its earlier verses. If the "I am" passage wasn't a direct claim to be God (and I believe it was, but as that is not the topic of debate for this thread I won't go into it in detail), at the very least it must have been a claim to pre-existence. Also, earlier in that thread Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham - the Jews themselves pointed out the apparent absurdity of this, if Jesus' existence began with his humanly birth.

I also have a theory which I am not sure whether or not is orthodox, but which I thought might be relevant for this thread for discussion. It pertains to the identity of "the angel of the LORD", which appears frequently in the OT. The Hebrew word used for angel here, mal'ak, has a primary meaning of "messenger". So the angel of the LORD is YWHW's messenger.

What is a messenger? Someone who brings the message, or the word of the one who sent them. Thus, the angel of the LORD was the one who brought the Word of God to people in the OT. I don't think it's much of a jump from there to conclude that "the angel of the LORD" and the Word of God were one in the same - ie, Jesus in his preincarnate form. If this theory is correct, it is obvious that Jesus pre-existed his birth (I'd go further and say that it establishes that Jesus is God too, but as this is a thread about pre-existence and not deity of Christ, I won't go into that here).

One Biblical observation I've used to support this theory is that those who saw the angel of the LORD always claimed to have seen God. But the Bible claims elsewhere that noone has ever seen the Father and lived. We know, however, that people could see Jesus and live.

Thoughts?

an interesting subject.... being born as a baby, and not just 'appearing' on the scene as a man, and taking into account John 3, my thoughts are.... The spirit of Jesus preexisted as the Word of God - one who partook in the creation of all.... the willing, submissive incarnation of that spirit into the world and body of man, begat the "son of God".... spirit united with flesh..... it is this specific "being" that we call "Jesus" (I don't think that I would call the "Word of God" (pre-incarnation) by the name "Jesus"). And I tend to believe that this incarnation is the beginnning of the Father-Son relationship. Until he was actually "born", there was no "Son", and without a son, (or progeny), one can't be a "Father"....Hence, the specific being known as "Jesus" existed from his incarnation onwards in Earth time - his spirit has eternally existed, and the resurrected "Son" returned to his former glory, only in a different "form" with a glorified body.... this is my intrepretation based on my limited understanding of space and time and the nature of God...

WoundedEgo

November 4th 2009, 08:11 PM

Actually, John 8:58 demonstrates that Jesus did not exist prior to his birth. Abraham, we are told, looked **forward** to Jesus' birth, not backward. He "saw it and celebrated." Then Jesus claims that Abraham's birth is yet future: "*I* am [presently] *before* Abraham's birth!"
What part of "This area is restricted to theists only" are you having difficulties with?

You are not permitted to post in this thread without prior permission.

AVmetro

November 4th 2009, 09:08 PM

This thread is over six years old.....:hrm:

Ah, the days of back to back (to back to back to back) posts...

WoundedEgo

November 4th 2009, 11:09 PM

Re: John 8:58
Note that Abraham looked *forward* to Jesus' [birthday] (not backwards) and that he saw and celebrated it [Jesus' birthday]. This would have clearly meant to his hearers that Jesus claimed that Abraham was still alive in 3 CE, not that Jesus was alive 1500 BCE or what ever.

Likewise, his saying that "*I* am (presently) *before* Abraham's birth" would have clearly indicated to his hearers that Abraham's birth was yet future. This would get their hackles up. It may be best to understand this saying in light of John's "born over" motif.

Bill Ross

barley

February 14th 2010, 09:58 PM

No!

Sparko

February 19th 2010, 10:37 AM

No!

Is that all you got?

:rofl:

UrbanMonk

February 20th 2010, 02:16 AM

Christ was not born in Bethlehem. We can say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and Christ was (re)born in Jesus' mind/heart.

Christ is a/the pre-time/mass reality which is eternal and unchanging. Christ does not incarnate, and so, is not born (of flesh) anywhere or anytime. Christ is born of Spirit, without beginning or without end. Christ is a totality (holy), being everywhere. So there is no "place" Christ can be born.

Man is a concept that imagines that Christ can incarnate (become limited). This is impossible. As such, man is a manifestation (appearance, illusion) of the impossible. Man is opposite Christ, postulating attributes antithetical to the true nature of Christ. Man is therefore "unnatural", and NOT made in the image of Our Father.

Man is a time/mass unreality that is temporary and always changing. As a man, Jesus followed a path through reincarnational life-cycles just as every man/woman does. The magi (wise men) from the east were expecting Jesus to be born at x place and time and came to pay homage...because Jesus (and his wise friends) were far advanced in terms of mastering the learning of salvation. Later, Jesus returned the honor and visited the east sometime during the 17 missing years of his western (bible) bibliography (history). He returned as a "master".

The "master" is one who has learned salvation completely, and who completes his part/role/contribution to the plan of salvation, which is the domain of "the Holy Spirit", who represents Christ, the Son of Go(o)d for that which is being saved. Every master understands that salvation is about IDENTITY. And so, every master understands that he is Christ..."the Lord". As such, Jesus "died" to the concept of manhood as an identity, and rose to embrace/accept Christhood as his true identity.

Christ is Truth itself.
Christ is Life itself.
Christ is Reality itself.
And Christ is SELF.

The "master" is/was a "man" (an unreal "self") who has come to know his true SELF. Not only does the SELF preexist time/mass (the world), the SELF transcends time/mass and persists, unchanged even while time/mass (change) seems to dominate Life with it's own, counterfiet version of "life" so-called. Jesus disown (died to) any other "life" except the Life of Christ, and in this way awakened from a deep sleep to know himself as Christ.

Jesus discovered "the way" to awaken from a deep sleep and shared his knowledge with sleepers as he was awakening/exiting the dream. To awaken, we must all follow his way. Otherwise, there is no way we will awaken, and we will continue to change as all men do, to die and to be reincarnated over and over again...until acceptance of the truth about our SELF sets us free, as it set Jesus free.

Urban Monk

Bill the Cat

February 20th 2010, 09:05 PM

So Jesus was just the lucky one who happened to discover Himself first? Dumb luck made Him the savior of the world? :twitch:

UrbanMonk

February 21st 2010, 02:23 AM

So Jesus was just the lucky one who happened to discover Himself first? Dumb luck made Him the savior of the world? :twitch:

Well think about it. Someone had to discover Himself first, if in fact it is our destiny to discover our Self. I wouldn't call it luck as much as a determined decision to learn and accept the truth. In other words, he paid his dues, so-to-speak. And I believe his efforts were not isolated to a single incarnation. Wise men came from the east to visit him at his birth, we are told. This is an honor high level learners pay to each other, having associated in other times and places. My sources - sources I trust - tell me that Jesus discovered Self first because from the very beginning of the fall, he was not as believing in (gullible to) the concept of separation as the majority of the then fragmenting mind. I have another source that quotes him as saying that he was required to be as vigilant (for the truth) as we are asked to be. Finally, his vigilance paid off, and the Son of Go(o)d "returned" to dawn upon his mind. Ever after, he thought with "the mind of Christ". Until we realize he was a trailblazer, we will not follow. We do not follow taskmasters. We follow leaders. As we follow, we become saviors as well, just as we also become "the light of the world".

Urban Monk

Livelystone

February 21st 2010, 11:00 AM

IronMetro:

In the thread you referenced as a foundation of your understanding of the preexistence of Jesus, you contributed the following objection and response:
= + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = +
Objection:

The Greek word logos, although masculine, does not entail a personal being based upon the gender influenced rendering of "He", but should be honestly translated as "it". See William Tyndales's version of the John.

Response:

This objection is essentially fallacious as the immediate context is the prime factor in deciding the rendering of "He" in reference to the 'Word'.

They are, in fact, correct in that the 'gender' of a Greek word has little bearing on the actual "sex" of the subject itself. There are three possible genders for Greek words which are masculine, feminine, and neuter.

If Trinitarians apply the same "sex based on word gender" principle that CDs allude to then the 'neuter' terms would be referenced with an 'it'.
= + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = +

Logos is a masculine noun and, as I understand it, it is appropriate for masculine nouns to be associated with it. What you didn’t cover in your response is the fact the gender of a noun in no way guarantees personality. It isn’t even a personification. It is just grammar. Why didn’t you mention that in your response?

Ron

I disagree

Do you have an example of when the gender usage of the language incorrectly identifies the sex ???

Thanks in advance

Doug

Bill the Cat

February 21st 2010, 09:56 PM

Well think about it. Someone had to discover Himself first, if in fact it is our destiny to discover our Self. I wouldn't call it luck as much as a determined decision to learn and accept the truth. In other words, he paid his dues, so-to-speak. And I believe his efforts were not isolated to a single incarnation. Wise men came from the east to visit him at his birth, we are told. This is an honor high level learners pay to each other, having associated in other times and places. My sources - sources I trust - tell me that Jesus discovered Self first because from the very beginning of the fall, he was not as believing in (gullible to) the concept of separation as the majority of the then fragmenting mind. I have another source that quotes him as saying that he was required to be as vigilant (for the truth) as we are asked to be. Finally, his vigilance paid off, and the Son of Go(o)d "returned" to dawn upon his mind. Ever after, he thought with "the mind of Christ". Until we realize he was a trailblazer, we will not follow. We do not follow taskmasters. We follow leaders. As we follow, we become saviors as well, just as we also become "the light of the world".

Urban Monk

:twitch: Just plain... wow...

UrbanMonk

February 21st 2010, 10:21 PM

:twitch: Just plain... wow...

It's not as far out as you imply. Jesus, the way he overcame the world, is a kind of "first". He, his success, is described biblically as a kind of "firstfruits". He calls us "the light of the world". How is this not the sharing of identity? There is only one Savior. As the Savior saves us, we become saviors as we identify with Christ. It's very simple, with lots of clues even in your own textual reference. Just plain "wow" is what Jesus students were saying even after three years study. So let's not pretend that the gospel is something familiar to human minds. The human mind is "lost". It is found when it accepts a truth that is presently beyond its scope of cognition.

Urban Monk

runtmc2jc

March 2nd 2010, 07:12 PM

[QUOTE=UrbanMonk;2917191...... There is only one Savior. As the Savior saves us, we become saviors as we identify with Christ. .

Urban Monk[/QUOTE]

first you say there is only one Savior.... then you say WE become saviors... you were right the first time.... there is only one savior.... there is only one propitiation for our falleness.... WE were not the "Word made flesh" who dwelt among us;.... WE did not live a perfect life and then sacrifice ourselves for the reconciliation of mankind to God;.... WE did not resurrect from the dead bodily to prove our divinity;..... and WE do not sit at the right hand of the Father....are there any other saviors out there that did all that ??? ..... WE are but fallen, broken souls, longing to be reconciled, yet fighting it all the way (in many cases)....all the time loved and cherished by G-d......the only enlightenment one needs to understand is to love G-d with everything you have, and then to love others as you love yourself.... there's nothing more "spiritual" or enlightened under the sun. Jesus shows us how to do this, as we walk in relationship with him to the glory of G-d....

UrbanMonk

March 2nd 2010, 10:29 PM

first you say there is only one Savior.... then you say WE become saviors... you were right the first time.... there is only one savior.... there is only one propitiation for our falleness.... WE were not the "Word made flesh" who dwelt among us;.... WE did not live a perfect life and then sacrifice ourselves for the reconciliation of mankind to God;.... WE did not resurrect from the dead bodily to prove our divinity;..... and WE do not sit at the right hand of the Father....are there any other saviors out there that did all that ??? ..... WE are but fallen, broken souls, longing to be reconciled, yet fighting it all the way (in many cases)....all the time loved and cherished by G-d......the only enlightenment one needs to understand is to love G-d with everything you have, and then to love others as you love yourself.... there's nothing more "spiritual" or enlightened under the sun. Jesus shows us how to do this, as we walk in relationship with him to the glory of G-d....

You're great misunderstanding comes from mistaking what is to be saved, and how it is saved. A savior would shed light on the problem; darkness/confusion. Darkeness/confusion manifests as "this world". Salvation is for the mind that makes, or otherwise authorizes the making of such a world (of time/mass/legion). Salvation is for the mind of the Son of Go(o)d, and/or an aspect thereof...YOU. Salvation is about saving the powerful from an (ab)use of power. Salvation is not about saving the powerless. So it's not about saving man. It's about saving a mind that thinks it is a man from it's malicious manifestations of mass.

You are greatly misunderstood. A savior would help you understand. You cannot bring your misunderstanding to the World of Real Go(o)d. And so, a savior will tell you the truth. If you were not misunderstood, you would not need the truth. In your misunderstanding, you think you know what is the truth. This is the same problem of all the "lost". And yet, because you are lost, salvation is for your true mind, which has become lost in what it believes is true (but isn't).

Urban Monk

runtmc2jc

March 8th 2010, 12:02 PM

You're great misunderstanding comes from mistaking what is to be saved, and how it is saved. A savior would shed light on the problem; darkness/confusion. Darkeness/confusion manifests as "this world". Salvation is for the mind that makes, or otherwise authorizes the making of such a world (of time/mass/legion). Salvation is for the mind of the Son of Go(o)d, and/or an aspect thereof...YOU. Salvation is about saving the powerful from an (ab)use of power. Salvation is not about saving the powerless. So it's not about saving man. It's about saving a mind that thinks it is a man from it's malicious manifestations of mass.

You are greatly misunderstood. A savior would help you understand. You cannot bring your misunderstanding to the World of Real Go(o)d. And so, a savior will tell you the truth. If you were not misunderstood, you would not need the truth. In your misunderstanding, you think you know what is the truth. This is the same problem of all the "lost". And yet, because you are lost, salvation is for your true mind, which has become lost in what it believes is true (but isn't).

Urban Monk

I respectfully disagree. Salvation is for the soul/spirit of man, for G-d is Spirit, and to be reconciled to him, our spirits must be "redeemed".... now it is true that the mind is a constituent part of the soul, so that is at least partially correct.........and BTW, the Judeo-Christian G-d is all about the powerless.... Read and meditate on the beatitudes sometime....

Peace....

barley

March 9th 2010, 07:57 PM

runtmc2jc

March 15th 2010, 11:52 AM

Did Jesus preexist his birth in Bethlehem? Could you explain the word "preexist"? pre meaning before? you mean existed before he existed? Ok, you need to explain that in terms that a fool can understand. the way of salvation is so simple

In my understanding (I could be wrong), it was the "spirit" of Jesus that preexisted - as the eternal "Word of God" per the gospel of John.... This spirit, mysteriously combined with the egg of the virgin, produced the human (man/God) we know as Jesus. That makes it easier for me to understand the "Father" and the "Son"..... until God (the Word) became man, there was no "son"......... yet Jesus apparently claimed pre-existance. Did he pre-exist as a man-God, or as a Spirit (aka the "Word of God") ???..... the latter makes more sense to me.

And how/where does the "Word of God" dwell now ??? Is that spirit (?) now forever indwelt in the resurrected Christ, so that they are one for all time since the Incarnation and Resurrection ???

this is my feeble attempt to wrap my brain around vast mysteries - when we throw in terms like eternity, time, space, multiple dimensions, and the like, who knows ???

we see dimly now, but later, face-to-face............ when we will "know as we are known"

barnasha

March 15th 2010, 12:35 PM

Don't wrap your mind around mysteries of your own construction, instead direct your search towards truth.

runtmc2jc

March 22nd 2010, 10:49 AM

Don't wrap your mind around mysteries of your own construction, instead direct your search towards truth.

There are many "mysteries" of Christian/Judeo-Christian theology and tradition, the scriptures are replete with them. I guess you can ignore them.......... or choose to ponder them....

Frank4YAHWEH

April 22nd 2012, 09:25 PM

No, Yahshua Messiah did not pre-exist his birth as an actual being that was with his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning. Yahshua only pre-existed his birth in the sense that he was in his and our Father Yahweh's plan before the world began.

Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth? (http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html)

Please do not advertise your personal web site in the body of your posts. We also do not allow argument by weblink.

Livelystone

April 23rd 2012, 03:49 PM

The Spirit of Christ has always existed in the breakdown as seen in Isaiah Chapter 11 verse 2.

Jesus the man, or whatever name that you give Him who is the Son of God who walked on earth and died for our sins before being resurrected by God the Father, did not exist in the flesh until conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin womb of Mary.

Because He became the fullness of the Godhead bodily, He said that He was able to lay Hs life down and pick it up again

Blessings

Doug

37818

April 25th 2012, 12:52 AM

The Scripture teaches and the orthodox creedal position is that Jesus Christ was begotten from eternityWhere?

Our Lord Jesus Christ preexisted His incarnation. But I would like to here how you conclude "begotten from eternity" from holy scripture. Thanks.

[Isaiah 43:10, 11.]

Frank4YAHWEH

April 25th 2012, 02:12 PM

37818

April 25th 2012, 08:17 PM

Peace greetings (shalom) ALL,

Scripture clearly teaches that Yahshua was a begotten son and nowhere teaches that he is an "eternal son". Since Yahshua is a begotten son, he certainly could not have existed for all eternity as an "eternal son".

So do you believe Jesus was really born human?(John 1:14.)
Do you believe that Jesus, because he was truly human, so in that he would not be good (sinless) because he is not also God? (Luke 18:19. Romans 3:10.)

Frank4YAHWEH

April 25th 2012, 10:02 PM

So do you believe Jesus was really born human?(John 1:14.)
Do you believe that Jesus, because he was truly human, so in that he would not be good (sinless) because he is not also God? (Luke 18:19. Romans 3:10.)

I believe that Yahshua was born and came into existence as a flesh and blood human being. I do not support the doctrine "Jesus IS God!", since Scripture does not teach such a doctrine as this.

37818

April 25th 2012, 10:12 PM

I do not support the doctrine "Jesus IS God!", since Scripture does not teach such a doctrine as this.

So do you believe Yahshua [Jesus] being a man was therefore a sinner? (Luke 18:19.) Since Yahshua is not also God.

Frank4YAHWEH

April 25th 2012, 10:39 PM

So do you believe Yahshua [Jesus] being a man was therefore a sinner? (Luke 18:19.) Since Yahshua is not also God.

THE MAN, YAHSHUA
Revised 3/12/12

Before his death, Yahshua was referred to as "man," or "the son of man," approximately 65 times as recorded in Scripture. He referred to himself as "the son of man."

Yahshua is also recorded on one occasion in translation of the so-called "New Testament" as referring to himself as "me, a man" (Yahchanan [John] 8:40). Scripture twice declares that FATHER Yahweh is not "a man" (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuyl 15:29). Not once is it ever recorded in ANY translation of the so-called "New Testament" as Yahshua the SON OF FATHER Yahweh giving reference to himself as "God" or "a god".

After his resurrection, even after he ascended into heaven, he was referred to as "man," or "son of man," more than 30 times. Total equals more than 95 times.

Before His Resurrection
A man among men

Matthew
8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8,32,40; 13:37,41; 16:13,27,28; 17:9,12,22; 18:11; 20:18,28; 25:13; 26:2,24,24,45

Mark
2:10,28; 8;31; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45; 13:34; 14: 21,21,41

Luke
6:5,22; 7:34; 9:22,44,56,58; 11:30; 12:8,10; 17:22; 18:8,31; 19:10; 22:22,48; 24:7

John
1:51; 3:13,14; 5:27, 6:7,53,62; 8:28; 12:23,34,34; 13:31

Acts
2:22

After His Resurrection
And at his second coming

Dan. 7:13 - A man from heaven
Mt. 19:28 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:7 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:30 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:37 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:39 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:44 - A man from heaven
Mt. 25:13 - A man from heaven
Mt. 25:31 - A man from heaven
Mt. 26:64 - A man in heaven
Mk. 8:38 - A man from heaven
Mk. 13:26 - A man from heaven
Mk. 14:62 - A man in heaven
Lk. 9:26 - A man from heaven
Lk. 12:40 - A man from heaven
Lk. 17:24 - A man from heaven
Lk. 17:26 - A man from heaven
Lk. 17:30 - A man from heaven
Lk. 21:27 - A man from heaven
Lk. 21:36 - A man from heaven
Lk. 22:69 - A man in heaven
Jn. 1:51 - A man in heaven
Jn. 3:14 - A man in heaven
Acts 7:56 - A man in heaven
Acts 17:31 - A man in heaven
Rom. 5:15 -
1 Cor. 15:21 -
1 Cor. 15:47 - A man from heaven
1 Tim. 2:5 - A man, Yahshua Messiah
Rev. 1:13 - A man in heaven
Rev. 14:14 - A man in heaven

37818

April 26th 2012, 08:13 PM

THE MAN, YAHSHUA
Revised 3/12/12

Before his death, Yahshua was referred to as "man," or "the son of man," approximately 65 times as recorded in Scripture. He referred to himself as "the son of man."

Yahshua is also recorded on one occasion in translation of the so-called "New Testament" as referring to himself as "me, a man" (Yahchanan [John] 8:40). Scripture twice declares that FATHER Yahweh is not "a man" (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuyl 15:29). Not once is it ever recorded in ANY translation of the so-called "New Testament" as Yahshua the SON OF FATHER Yahweh giving reference to himself as "God" or "a god".

After his resurrection, even after he ascended into heaven, he was referred to as "man," or "son of man," more than 30 times. Total equals more than 95 times.

Before His Resurrection
A man among men

Matthew
8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8,32,40; 13:37,41; 16:13,27,28; 17:9,12,22; 18:11; 20:18,28; 25:13; 26:2,24,24,45

Mark
2:10,28; 8;31; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45; 13:34; 14: 21,21,41

Luke
6:5,22; 7:34; 9:22,44,56,58; 11:30; 12:8,10; 17:22; 18:8,31; 19:10; 22:22,48; 24:7

John
1:51; 3:13,14; 5:27, 6:7,53,62; 8:28; 12:23,34,34; 13:31

Acts
2:22

After His Resurrection
And at his second coming

Dan. 7:13 - A man from heaven
Mt. 19:28 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:7 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:30 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:37 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:39 - A man from heaven
Mt. 24:44 - A man from heaven
Mt. 25:13 - A man from heaven
Mt. 25:31 - A man from heaven
Mt. 26:64 - A man in heaven
Mk. 8:38 - A man from heaven
Mk. 13:26 - A man from heaven
Mk. 14:62 - A man in heaven
Lk. 9:26 - A man from heaven
Lk. 12:40 - A man from heaven
Lk. 17:24 - A man from heaven
Lk. 17:26 - A man from heaven
Lk. 17:30 - A man from heaven
Lk. 21:27 - A man from heaven
Lk. 21:36 - A man from heaven
Lk. 22:69 - A man in heaven
Jn. 1:51 - A man in heaven
Jn. 3:14 - A man in heaven
Acts 7:56 - A man in heaven
Acts 17:31 - A man in heaven
Rom. 5:15 -
1 Cor. 15:21 -
1 Cor. 15:47 - A man from heaven
1 Tim. 2:5 - A man, Yahshua Messiah
Rev. 1:13 - A man in heaven
Rev. 14:14 - A man in heaven

So am I to understand that you do believe in him to be a sinner?

For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Littlejoe

April 26th 2012, 08:28 PM

Frank4YAHWEH

April 26th 2012, 09:06 PM

So am I to understand that you do believe in him to be a sinner?

For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Yahshua was without sin meaning that he obeyed his and our Father Yahweh's instruction (torah, law, commandment, precept, charge, teaching).

We also can be forgiven and washed clean of all PAST sin (disobedience to Father Yahweh) through Yahshua who is the unblemished Lamb of Yahweh and our advocate with Him.

"Come now, let us reason together," says Yahweh. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool (Isayah 1:18).

Whom [Yahshua] Yahweh has set forth to be an atonement through belief in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins THAT ARE PAST, through the forbearance of Yahweh; ...(Romans 3:25).

My dear children, I'm writing this to you SO THAT YOU WILL NOT SIN. Yet, if anyone does sin, we have Yahshua Messiah, who has Yahweh's full approval. He speaks on our behalf when we come into the presence of the Father (1 Yahchanan [John] 2:1).

At the time the following verse was inspired, Yahshua did not exist as a man here in the world. He was begotten as a man at a much later time in history.

For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Frank4YAHWEH

April 26th 2012, 09:54 PM

What did Yahshua mean when he said:

58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Obviously quoting God when He said:

13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord,[b] the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

"Before Abraham Was, I Am" (Jn.8:58)

These words are often misapplied to teach that Jesus existed before Abraham did. However, closer investigation reveals the opposite to be true:

1. Jesus does not say 'Before Abraham was, I was". He was the promised descendant of Abraham; we make a nonsense of God's promises to Abraham if we say that Jesus physically existed before the time of Abraham.

2. The context of Jn.8:58 is Christ's discourse with the Jews concerning Abraham. As far as they were concerned, Abraham was the greatest man who would ever live. Jesus is saying "I am now, as I stand here, more important than Abraham". As they stood there, Jesus was the one to be honoured rather than Abraham. He is saying 'I am now, more important than Abraham ever was'. It is possible to understand "before" in Jn.8:58 with some reference to time, in the sense that before Abraham existed, Christ had been in God's plan right from the beginning of the world. It was because Jesus was "before" Abraham in this sense that he was "before" him in terms of importance.

3. Proof of this is found in Jn.8:56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad". The only time Abraham is recorded to have laughed and be glad was when he was given the promise that he would have a seed; he understood that ultimately that promise had reference to Jesus (Gen.17:17). Abraham "saw" ahead to Christ through the promises made to him concerning Jesus. He cryptically commented about the future sacrifice of Jesus: "In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen" (Gen.22:14). It was in this sense that Jesus speaks of Abraham as having seen him. It is in this context of speaking about the promises that Jesus could say "Before Abraham was, I am". He appreciated, as we have explained in Section 3.1, that God's promises to Abraham were revealing the plan about Jesus which God had known from the beginning of the world. That purpose, which had been "before Abraham was", had been revealed to Abraham in the promises to him, and was now being fulfilled in the eyes of the Jews of the first century, as they stood in a ring around Jesus, "the word (of promise) made flesh".

4. It is often claimed that Jesus is alluding to the Divine Name when he says "I am". We explained in Digression 3 that Jesus and indeed ordinary men can carry the Name of God, without this meaning that they are God Himself in person. However, it may be that Jesus is simply using the present tense of the verb 'to be'. The very same Greek construction occurs in Jn.9:9 a few verses later. The neighbours of the blind man who was cured asked each other whether he was indeed the same man who used to sit and beg: "Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am (he)" . You will notice that in the A.V. the word "he" is in italics. This means that it is not found in the original Greek text, but has been added by the translators. The blind man is saying "I am", just as Jesus said "I am" in Jn.8:58. If we say that the fact Jesus said "I am" proves that he is very God, then we have to conclude that the blind man was also "very God". However, it is worth noting that Yahweh, the Divine Name, really means "I will be who I will be" (Ex.3:14 R.S.V.mg.; R.V.mg.) rather than "I am".

SOURCE (http://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/Study07OriginofJesus/D25BeforeAbrahamWasIAm.html)

Please limit how much you copy and paste.

The rest of the post can be found at the indicated source.

37818

April 27th 2012, 07:18 PM

Yahshua was without sin meaning that he obeyed his and our Father Yahweh's instruction (torah, law, commandment, precept, charge, teaching).

We also can be forgiven and washed clean of all PAST sin (disobedience to Father Yahweh) through Yahshua who is the unblemished Lamb of Yahweh and our advocate with Him.

"Come now, let us reason together," says Yahweh. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool (Isayah 1:18).

Whom [Yahshua] Yahweh has set forth to be an atonement through belief in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins THAT ARE PAST, through the forbearance of Yahweh; ...(Romans 3:25).

My dear children, I'm writing this to you SO THAT YOU WILL NOT SIN. Yet, if anyone does sin, we have Yahshua Messiah, who has Yahweh's full approval. He speaks on our behalf when we come into the presence of the Father (1 Yahchanan [John] 2:1).

At the time the following verse was inspired, Yahshua did not exist as a man here in the world. He was begotten as a man at a much later time in history.

For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

You're are making excuses, which contradicts Jesus' [Yahshua's] own teachings.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.

Jesus [Yahshua] is a man, and he is asking this man, by his question, if he thinks he is God? Men are sinners, God is not. So the only way, according to Jesus, to be good, sinless, is if he were God. Which you say he is not. Then Jesus [Yahshua] is a sinner.

Littlejoe

April 27th 2012, 07:47 PM

"Before Abraham Was, I Am" (Jn.8:58)

These words are often misapplied to teach that Jesus existed before Abraham did. However, closer investigation reveals the opposite to be true:

1. Jesus does not say 'Before Abraham was, I was". He was the promised descendant of Abraham; we make a nonsense of God's promises to Abraham if we say that Jesus physically existed before the time of Abraham.

2. The context of Jn.8:58 is Christ's discourse with the Jews concerning Abraham. As far as they were concerned, Abraham was the greatest man who would ever live. Jesus is saying "I am now, as I stand here, more important than Abraham". As they stood there, Jesus was the one to be honoured rather than Abraham. He is saying 'I am now, more important than Abraham ever was'. It is possible to understand "before" in Jn.8:58 with some reference to time, in the sense that before Abraham existed, Christ had been in God's plan right from the beginning of the world. It was because Jesus was "before" Abraham in this sense that he was "before" him in terms of importance.

3. Proof of this is found in Jn.8:56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad". The only time Abraham is recorded to have laughed and be glad was when he was given the promise that he would have a seed; he understood that ultimately that promise had reference to Jesus (Gen.17:17). Abraham "saw" ahead to Christ through the promises made to him concerning Jesus. He cryptically commented about the future sacrifice of Jesus: "In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen" (Gen.22:14). It was in this sense that Jesus speaks of Abraham as having seen him. It is in this context of speaking about the promises that Jesus could say "Before Abraham was, I am". He appreciated, as we have explained in Section 3.1, that God's promises to Abraham were revealing the plan about Jesus which God had known from the beginning of the world. That purpose, which had been "before Abraham was", had been revealed to Abraham in the promises to him, and was now being fulfilled in the eyes of the Jews of the first century, as they stood in a ring around Jesus, "the word (of promise) made flesh".

4. It is often claimed that Jesus is alluding to the Divine Name when he says "I am". We explained in Digression 3 that Jesus and indeed ordinary men can carry the Name of God, without this meaning that they are God Himself in person. However, it may be that Jesus is simply using the present tense of the verb 'to be'. The very same Greek construction occurs in Jn.9:9 a few verses later. The neighbours of the blind man who was cured asked each other whether he was indeed the same man who used to sit and beg: "Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am (he)" . You will notice that in the A.V. the word "he" is in italics. This means that it is not found in the original Greek text, but has been added by the translators. The blind man is saying "I am", just as Jesus said "I am" in Jn.8:58. If we say that the fact Jesus said "I am" proves that he is very God, then we have to conclude that the blind man was also "very God". However, it is worth noting that Yahweh, the Divine Name, really means "I will be who I will be" (Ex.3:14 R.S.V.mg.; R.V.mg.) rather than "I am".

SOURCE (http://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/Study07OriginofJesus/D25BeforeAbrahamWasIAm.html)

Well, it's obvious you can copy and paste someone elses answer, but these explanations ignore all kinds of exegetical rules that I don't even know where to start....

Frank4YAHWEH

April 27th 2012, 08:13 PM

Well, it's obvious you can copy and paste someone elses answer, but these explanations ignore all kinds of exegetical rules that I don't even know where to start....

Well, great! I really did not care to hear Trinitarian exegesis anyway! :lol:

Frank4YAHWEH

April 27th 2012, 08:21 PM

You're are making excuses, which contradicts Jesus' [Yahshua's] own teachings.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.

Jesus [Yahshua] is a man, and he is asking this man, by his question, if he thinks he is God? Men are sinners, God is not. So the only way, according to Jesus, to be good, sinless, is if he were God. Which you say he is not. Then Jesus [Yahshua] is a sinner.

Well, it seems you are not properly understanding what he meant by saying this, since it says in 1 Yahchanan [John] 2:1:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Yahshua Messiah, the righteous one.

37818

April 27th 2012, 09:22 PM

Well, it seems you are not properly understanding what he meant by saying this, since it says in 1 Yahchanan [John] 2:1:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Yahshua Messiah, the righteous one.

Do you even understand? I agree with 1 John 2:1. Because it is my understanding that Jesus the man is righteous because He is also YHWH with the Father. Now I do understand this much, you do not agree with this. But the only way I can see this to make any sense at all, is if Jesus [Yahshua] has two natures, one being not God and one being God with the Father. I know you disagree. But your argument seems to render either what is ascribed to Jesus in Luke 18:18 as false or 1 John 2:1 "the righteous one" as false, unless I understand the "one" meaning He is God with His Father. "none [is] good, save one, [that is], God." So it would help a lot, if you would explain your thinking here, in contrast to the understanding I just explained here. Thanks.

Littlejoe

April 28th 2012, 10:53 AM

Well, great! I really did not care to hear Trinitarian exegesis anyway! :lol:Sure! No problem...I rarely waste my time with the "Don't confuse me facts my mind is already made up" folks such as yourself....:clueless:

But, at least try to obey the rules...thanks.

LJ

Frank4YAHWEH

April 28th 2012, 09:43 PM

Do you even understand? I agree with 1 John 2:1. Because it is my understanding that Jesus the man is righteous because He is also YHWH with the Father. Now I do understand this much, you do not agree with this. But the only way I can see this to make any sense at all, is if Jesus [Yahshua] has two natures, one being not God and one being God with the Father. I know you disagree. But your argument seems to render either what is ascribed to Jesus in Luke 18:18 as false or 1 John 2:1 "the righteous one" as false, unless I understand the "one" meaning He is God with His Father. "none [is] good, save one, [that is], God." So it would help a lot, if you would explain your thinking here, in contrast to the understanding I just explained here. Thanks.

My understanding of the word "one" in reference to Yahshua in this verse is that it is speaking of him being one person. For example, one could also give reference to a "righteous few" or "righteous ones". These two word phrases would be speaking of more than one person. Yes, I most certainly do disagree with you! The so-called "New Testament" never records that Yahshua had "two natures". I do not believe that Yahshua was "God with His Father", nor do I believe that he ever will be. There is only one Mighty One ["God"] and that is Father Yahweh. Yahshua ["Jesus"] is the son of Yahweh ["God"], not Yahweh ["God"].

FYI, the Scripture speaks not only of Yahshua being righteous, but also speaks of others being righteous.

And my righteous ones will live by faith. But I will take no pleasure in anyone who turns away (Hebrews 10:38).

Even as Abraham believed Yahweh, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Galatians 3:6).

Because Yahseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly (Mattithyah [Matthew] 1:19).

This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with Yahweh (Genesis 6:9).

If one lives in accordance with Father Yahweh's righteous instruction (torah, law, commandment, precept, charge, teaching), He finds favor with such a person. Note that Scripture instructs us not to boast of righteous works. The reason being is that righteousness does not come from us personally, but from Father Yahweh. Father Yahweh's righteousness works through us. Even Yahshua himself never once boasted of righteous works, but gave all esteem to his and our Father Yahweh. This was obviously Yahshua's meaning behind his response to the certain ruler who gave reference to him as a righteous teacher. He was instructing that his teaching or the word that he spoke came from his and our Father Yahweh.

For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it (Yahchanan [John] 12:49).

You who boast in the law dishonor Yahweh by breaking the law (Romans 2:23) .

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before Yahweh. For what does Scripture say? "And Abraham believed Yahweh, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness ..." (Romans 4:3-4 - Read what was previously said in context and read further on in the context ... cf. Galatians 3:6)

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In that time period shall Yahdah be redeemed, and Yerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name by which it shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness. (Yeremyah 33:15-16).

Yahweh made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of Yahweh (2 Corinthians 5:21).

In Revelation, the bride of Messiah was "given fine linen in which to clothe herself, linen bright and clean." And what does this fine linen represent? "The fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints" (Revelation 19:7-9).

Father Yahweh says "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean, take away from before My eyes the evil of your deeds. Cease to do evil, learn to do what is right" (Isayah 1:16-17). The passage goes on to say that if the people do this willingly and obediently, they will be rewarded and blessed" (Isayah 1:18-20).

This says Yahweh, "Preserve justice and do righteousness... How blessed is the man who does this..." (Isayah 56:1-2).

runtmc2jc

April 30th 2012, 11:59 AM

[QUOTE=Frank4YAHWEH;3396758]"Before Abraham Was, I Am" (Jn.8:58)

These words are often misapplied to teach that Jesus existed before Abraham did. However, closer investigation reveals the opposite to be true:

1. Jesus does not say 'Before Abraham was, I was". He was the promised descendant of Abraham; we make a nonsense of God's promises to Abraham if we say that Jesus physically existed before the time of Abraham.

2. The context of Jn.8:58 is Christ's discourse with the Jews concerning Abraham. As far as they were concerned, Abraham was the greatest man who would ever live. Jesus is saying "I am now, as I stand here, more important than Abraham". As they stood there, Jesus was the one to be honoured rather than Abraham. He is saying 'I am now, more important than Abraham ever was'. It is possible to understand "before" in Jn.8:58 with some reference to time, in the sense that before Abraham existed, Christ had been in God's plan right from the beginning of the world. It was because Jesus was "before" Abraham in this sense that he was "before" him in terms of importance.

3. Proof of this is found in Jn.8:56: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad". The only time Abraham is recorded to have laughed and be glad was when he was given the promise that he would have a seed; he understood that ultimately that promise had reference to Jesus (Gen.17:17). Abraham "saw" ahead to Christ through the promises made to him concerning Jesus. He cryptically commented about the future sacrifice of Jesus: "In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen" (Gen.22:14). It was in this sense that Jesus speaks of Abraham as having seen him. It is in this context of speaking about the promises that Jesus could say "Before Abraham was, I am". He appreciated, as we have explained in Section 3.1, that God's promises to Abraham were revealing the plan about Jesus which God had known from the beginning of the world. That purpose, which had been "before Abraham was", had been revealed to Abraham in the promises to him, and was now being fulfilled in the eyes of the Jews of the first century, as they stood in a ring around Jesus, "the word (of promise) made flesh".

4. It is often claimed that Jesus is alluding to the Divine Name when he says "I am". We explained in Digression 3 that Jesus and indeed ordinary men can carry the Name of God, without this meaning that they are God Himself in person. However, it may be that Jesus is simply using the present tense of the verb 'to be'. The very same Greek construction occurs in Jn.9:9 a few verses later. The neighbours of the blind man who was cured asked each other whether he was indeed the same man who used to sit and beg: "Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am (he)" . You will notice that in the A.V. the word "he" is in italics. This means that it is not found in the original Greek text, but has been added by the translators. The blind man is saying "I am", just as Jesus said "I am" in Jn.8:58. If we say that the fact Jesus said "I am" proves that he is very God, then we have to conclude that the blind man was also "very God". However, it is worth noting that Yahweh, the Divine Name, really means "I will be who I will be" (Ex.3:14 R.S.V.mg.; R.V.mg.) rather than "I am".

SOURCE (http://www.biblebasicsonline.com/english/Study07OriginofJesus/D25BeforeAbrahamWasIAm.html)
[notice=rogue06]

It is disingenious for any infer Jesus did not claim to be "one with G-d" - the religious leaders of the time understood this and charged him with blasphemy. John clearly says the "Word" was with G-d and the "Word" was G-d ... and later, the "Word" became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus, the man in the flesh, did not pre-exist, but his Spirit was the always-existing "Word"of G-d, who was the Creator. I don't see evidence in the O.T. of the relationship Father-Son, because there was no Son prior. There was the essence of G-d, which included minimally the Word and the Spirit. Once the Word combined with a human egg through the miraculous incarnation, the Father-Son relationship was instituted. Forever more, this Spirit/Word + fleshly man entity exists - as the Son of God, seated at the right hand of the "Father".... The plan from the beginning was for G-d to provide Himself as the sacrificial Lamb to reconcile his fallen creation back to Himself. This was accomplished as He (as the Spirit/Word of G-d) incarnated into human flesh, as the "man" we know as Jesus.... the whole thing doesn't make sense unless the eternal Word incarnated, and the Virgin was with child (without human sexual relations)... this is a stumbling block to many, but it is absolutely essential and foundational to the faith.

Frank4YAHWEH

April 30th 2012, 03:22 PM

runtmc2jc

May 10th 2012, 02:20 PM

[QUOTE=runtmc2jc;3398017]

I have never been disingenuous and have never inferred that Yahshua never claimed that he was not one with his and our Father Yahweh, and nether does the source that I have submitted. In fact, he even communed with his and our Father Yahweh that his desire was that the men that He had given him from the world also be one with Him "EVEN AS WE ARE ONE" (Yahchanan [John] 17:22 (http://www.bible.cc/john/17-22.htm)). FYI, the Sanhedrin (Jewish religious leaders) falsely accused Yahshua of blasphemy. You can side with them till you are blue in the face for all I care, but for me, I will side with what Yahshua said in his clearly stating that he was the son of Yahweh. He is never recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as proclaiming to be "God" to them. Also, nowhere in Scripture does it ever teach "It was in Father Yahweh's plan from the beginning to provide Himself as the sacrificial Lamb to reconcile his fallen creation back to Himself."

Do you know where in the OT Yahweh is referred to as the "Father" ??? (other than Ps 2) ???

Also, after the Resurrection, Yashua was declared by Thomas as "my Lord and my God"

My point remains.... Jesus is described as the "Word" - pre-incarnate - after the incarnation, he is Yashua... His Spirit is - and was - the Word.... that Spirit, clothed in human flesh is Yashua.... how would the corporal body which came into existence some 2,000 years ago, pre-exist itself ??? But it is easy for me to comprehend his Spirit pre-existed, since the corporal body had no human father.... this is as far as my understanding will go. Perhaps I cannot see another way.

Sparko

May 10th 2012, 02:24 PM

Do you know where in the OT Yahweh is referred to as the "Father" ??? (other than Ps 2) ???

Psalm 89:26
He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’

Jer 3:19
“I myself said, “‘How gladly would I treat you like my children and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.’ I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 11th 2012, 02:42 PM

[QUOTE=Frank4YAHWEH;3398132]

Do you know where in the OT Yahweh is referred to as the "Father" ??? (other than Ps 2) ???

Also, after the Resurrection, Yashua was declared by Thomas as "my Lord and my God"

My point remains.... Jesus is described as the "Word" - pre-incarnate - after the incarnation, he is Yashua... His Spirit is - and was - the Word.... that Spirit, clothed in human flesh is Yashua.... how would the corporal body which came into existence some 2,000 years ago, pre-exist itself ??? But it is easy for me to comprehend his Spirit pre-existed, since the corporal body had no human father.... this is as far as my understanding will go. Perhaps I cannot see another way.

Note that the account where Thomas is recorded as exclaiming "My Lord and my God!" is not presented to prove the doctrine "Jesus IS God!", but that it is presented to show Thomas's believing that Yahshua had been resurrected from the dead. Many translations record Thomas's reaction in seeing evidence of Yahshua being resurrected from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh as an exclamation and add the punctuation of an exclamation mark in accordance with his exclamation. There is no evidence in what he said in exclamation that this was directed specifically at Yahshua to being his "Lord" or "God". Yahshua is frequently given reference to in translation of Scripture as being "Lord", but this title is not always directed to Father Yahweh as being "LORD" in translation. In the so-called "Old Testament" Father Yahweh is frequently referred to as "LORD" in all capital letters in substitution for His Name Yahweh. This practice of distinguishing "LORD" from "Lord" was not carried out in the so called "New Testament", so many become confused as to who the title "Lord' is giving reference to. Where "LORD" appears in all capital letters in the so called "Old Testament" is where our Heavenly Father and Creator's Name which is represented by three Hebrew letter characters (one being repeated) is translated into our English language as 'YHWH'. Theses 4 letters are commonly referred to by the Greek word 'Tetragrammaton' which means 'four letter word or name'. As for the title "God" (with a capital 'G') as used in Scripture translation, it is in reference to Father Yahweh and not to His son Yahshua. Thomas could have been directing both words "Lord" and "God" in exclamation to Father Yahweh in surprise in seeing that Yahshua had truly been resurrected from the dead, just as many in this time period say "My Lord and My God!" in a surprise of exclamation to seeing something astounding. Thomas could have also been referring to Yahshua as his Master (or 'Lord') and at the same time giving reference to Father Yahweh as "God" in translation with his exclamation. We can easily conclude that he was not giving reference to Yahshua as "God", since Scripture clearly teaches in translation that there is only but one "God" and not two or three. Yahshua is also frequently recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as giving reference to Yahweh as his and our "Father" Who is in heaven and to Him as being his "God" in translation. No one is ever recorded in the so called "New Testament" as referring to as Yahshua as "God" in translation and Yahshua is never recorded as proclaiming "I am God." in this section of Scripture.

For more in depth information on Thomas' exclamation, enter "Did Thomas Call Yahshua "God"?" into the Google search query to see my Xanga web log entry on this subject.

As for the rest of what you have posted, I have yet to see anything that you have described presented in such a way in Scripture.

Sparko

May 11th 2012, 03:06 PM

Frank4YAHWEH

May 11th 2012, 03:54 PM

actually in Greek, Thomas' words are even clearer that he was calling Jesus "God" than in English.

Ho Kurios Mou Kai Ho Theos Mou

The Greek literally says "The Lord of me and the God of me" and the grammar shows that the object of his words was one person, Jesus. Not two.

Even reading it as "The Lord of me and the God of me" one can not say that he his giving reference to Yahshua as his "God", since Scripture clearly teaches that there is only but one "God" in accordance with translation. Grammatically the word phrase "The Lord of me AND the God of me" can also be in reference to two beings, with one being "the Lord" and the other being "the God".

So, do you believe in two "Gods" and that Thomas also believed in two "Gods", since you believe he is addressing the Messiah as "God" and since the Messiah gives reference to his and our "God" who is in heaven when he himself was here on earth. I am counting two "Gods" here in accordance with your reasoning, one in heaven and one on earth.

Sparko

May 11th 2012, 04:02 PM

Even reading it as "The Lord of me and the God of me" one can not say that he his giving reference to Yahshua as his "God", since Scripture clearly teaches that there is only but one "God" in accordance with translation. Grammatically the word phrase "The Lord of me AND the God of me" can also be in reference to two beings, with one being "the Lord" and the other being "the God".

So, do you believe in two "Gods" and that Thomas also believed in two "Gods", since you believe he is addressing the Messiah as "God" and since the Messiah gives reference to his and our "God" who is in heaven when he himself was here on earth. I am counting two "Gods" here in accordance with your reasoning, one in heaven and one on earth.

Grammatically the sentence only has one object: Jesus. Thomas was speaking to Jesus. He called him his Lord and God.

There is only one God, revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 11th 2012, 04:39 PM

Grammatically the sentence only has one object: Jesus. Thomas was speaking to Jesus. He called him his Lord and God.

There is only one God, revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

How is it that you have concluded that Yahweh's spirit is a separate person apart from Him and where in Scripture does it ever teach "There is only one God, revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Actually, the word phrase "The Lord of me and the God of me" can have more than one object, one being "the Lord" and the other being sepearted by the word "and" as "the God".

So, let's say that you come to me and you show me something that truly estounds me and I exclaim "My Lord and My God!". Would you actually believe that I am calling you my Lord and my God? Certainly not! You would believe that I am giving reference to our Heavenly Father and Creator and not to you.

Sparko

May 11th 2012, 07:42 PM

How is it that you have concluded that Yahweh's spirit is a separate person apart from Him and where in Scripture does it ever teach "There is only one God, revealed as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Actually, the word phrase "The Lord of me and the God of me" can have more than one object, one being "the Lord" and the other being sepearted by the word "and" as "the God".

So, let's say that you come to me and you show me something that truly estounds me and I exclaim "My Lord and My God!". Would you actually believe that I am calling you my Lord and my God? Certainly not! You would believe that I am giving reference to our Heavenly Father and Creator and not to you.

You are conflating a modern english exclamation with something someone said 2,000 years ago. that's your first mistake. There was no such usage as that back then, especially for a Jew who would never blaspheme God by making a vain exclamation or to even imply that someone else was God unless he actually was.

Your second error is in demanding the exact phrase that I used that God is one God revealed as three persons. That is like saying the bible isn't true because the word "bible" isn't found in the bible.

Reading the OT we know that there is only one God. Reading the NT we see many cases, just like in Thomas' case, where Jesus is called God, starting with John 1 where it plainly calls him God and creator. and Colossians 1 where it also calls him the creator. And in Titus, and in Peter's letters, and in Hebrews. And in Acts the Holy Spirit is called God and in other places the Holy Spirit is shown to be a person. You take all that evidence and your only conclusion is that while there is only ONE God, you have three distinct persons who are shown to be God.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 11th 2012, 08:06 PM

You are conflating a modern english exclamation with something someone said 2,000 years ago. that's your first mistake. There was no such usage as that back then, especially for a Jew who would never blaspheme God by making a vain exclamation or to even imply that someone else was God unless he actually was.

Your second error is in demanding the exact phrase that I used that God is one God revealed as three persons. That is like saying the bible isn't true because the word "bible" isn't found in the bible.

Reading the OT we know that there is only one God. Reading the NT we see many cases, just like in Thomas' case, where Jesus is called God, starting with John 1 where it plainly calls him God and creator. and Colossians 1 where it also calls him the creator. And in Titus, and in Peter's letters, and in Hebrews. And in Acts the Holy Spirit is called God and in other places the Holy Spirit is shown to be a person. You take all that evidence and your only conclusion is that while there is only ONE God, you have three distinct persons who are shown to be God.

Your mistake would be that you are not speaking in accordance with what Scripture truly teaches. First off nowhere in Yahchanan [John] 1 and Colossians 1 does it ever call Yahshua "God and Creator" nor will you ever find such a false statement made "in Titus, and in Peter's letters, and in Hebrews." Nowhere in the whole of Scripture will you ever find it said that there are "three distinct persons who are shown to be God."

Sparko

May 11th 2012, 08:17 PM

Your mistake would be that you are not speaking in accordance with what Scripture truly teaches. First off nowhere in Yahchanan [John] 1 and Colossians 1 does it ever call Yahshua "God and Creator" nor will you ever find such a false statement made "in Titus, and in Peter's letters, and in Hebrews." Nowhere in the whole of Scripture will you ever find it said that there are "three distinct persons who are shown to be God."

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

YHWH is Creator

*Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

*Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

On top of that, Jesus was worshiped and accepted worship from men and angels. Nobody but God is worthy of being worshiped.

Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Matthew 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Luke 24:51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

John 9:37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

I can go on and on and on, but I am pretty sure nothing will convince you because your mind is already made up.

runtmc2jc

May 14th 2012, 11:02 AM

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

YHWH is Creator

*Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

*Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

On top of that, Jesus was worshiped and accepted worship from men and angels. Nobody but God is worthy of being worshiped.

Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Matthew 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Luke 24:51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

John 9:37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

I can go on and on and on, but I am pretty sure nothing will convince you because your mind is already made up.

Thank you for that very succint response... What is your take on the "Father", pre- incarnation ???.... Was this "title" conferred upon the incarnation, or is there OT scriptures supporting it as an eternal epithet ???.... it seems a relational title to me (just like I don't see the "Son" pre-incarnation, but rather the "Word" - I do see evidence of it prophetically), and before the incarnation I don't see it being understood that way... This is just an area I've been mulling over for quite awhile and any clarity or insight is greatly appreciated.... pre-incarnation I see the Godhead consisting of a figure (later known as the "Father"), the "Word", and the "Spirit". Upon incarnation I see these as "Father", "Son" (the combination of the eternal "Word" with the human body - aka Jesus/Yashua), and the "Spirit".

Livelystone

May 14th 2012, 11:16 AM

[QUOTE=runtmc2jc;3403873]

Note that the account where Thomas is recorded as exclaiming "My Lord and my God!" is not presented to prove the doctrine "Jesus IS God!", but that it is presented to show Thomas's believing that Yahshua had been resurrected from the dead. Many translations record Thomas's reaction in seeing evidence of Yahshua being resurrected from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh as an exclamation and add the punctuation of an exclamation mark in accordance with his exclamation. There is no evidence in what he said in exclamation that this was directed specifically at Yahshua to being his "Lord" or "God". Yahshua is frequently given reference to in translation of Scripture as being "Lord", but this title is not always directed to Father Yahweh as being "LORD" in translation. In the so-called "Old Testament" Father Yahweh is frequently referred to as "LORD" in all capital letters in substitution for His Name Yahweh. This practice of distinguishing "LORD" from "Lord" was not carried out in the so called "New Testament", so many become confused as to who the title "Lord' is giving reference to. Where "LORD" appears in all capital letters in the so called "Old Testament" is where our Heavenly Father and Creator's Name which is represented by three Hebrew letter characters (one being repeated) is translated into our English language as 'YHWH'. Theses 4 letters are commonly referred to by the Greek word 'Tetragrammaton' which means 'four letter word or name'. As for the title "God" (with a capital 'G') as used in Scripture translation, it is in reference to Father Yahweh and not to His son Yahshua. Thomas could have been directing both words "Lord" and "God" in exclamation to Father Yahweh in surprise in seeing that Yahshua had truly been resurrected from the dead, just as many in this time period say "My Lord and My God!" in a surprise of exclamation to seeing something astounding. Thomas could have also been referring to Yahshua as his Master (or 'Lord') and at the same time giving reference to Father Yahweh as "God" in translation with his exclamation. We can easily conclude that he was not giving reference to Yahshua as "God", since Scripture clearly teaches in translation that there is only but one "God" and not two or three. Yahshua is also frequently recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as giving reference to Yahweh as his and our "Father" Who is in heaven and to Him as being his "God" in translation. No one is ever recorded in the so called "New Testament" as referring to as Yahshua as "God" in translation and Yahshua is never recorded as proclaiming "I am God." in this section of Scripture.

For more in depth information on Thomas' exclamation, enter "Did Thomas Call Yahshua "God"?" into the Google search query to see my Xanga web log entry on this subject.

As for the rest of what you have posted, I have yet to see anything that you have described presented in such a way in Scripture.

One of the basic reasons that people in Bible times saw more of the presence and power of God was the greatly increased general attitude of respect and reverence for the spirit and the name of the Lord back then versus the flippant attitude expressed within the church today.

To suggest that the same as people today say “holy****” or cry out the name “Jesus Christ” as an exclamation while not being excused from the sin of ignorance of taking the name of the Lord in vain; that a follower of Jesus Christ who witnessed many divine works would use the words “Lord” or “God” with anything less than pure and total reverence, is not my opinion proving the truth, or respecting our founding fathers as they should be respected.

Just my 02

Blessings

Doug

Frank4YAHWEH

May 15th 2012, 10:02 PM

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

YHWH is Creator

*Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

*Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Jesus is Creator

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

YHWH is the "First and the Last"

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says -- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

Jesus is the "First and the Last"

Rev. 1:17 "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’"

Rev. 2:8 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."

Rev. 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

YHWH is Savior

Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior"

Isaiah 45:21 "...And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Hosea 13: 4 "But I am the LORD your God, [who brought you] out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me.

Jesus is Savior

John 4:42 "They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’"

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world

On top of that, Jesus was worshiped and accepted worship from men and angels. Nobody but God is worthy of being worshiped.

Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Matthew 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Luke 24:51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

John 9:37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

I can go on and on and on, but I am pretty sure nothing will convince you because your mind is already made up.

Yes, you could go on and on, but I am already quite familiar with the Scripture verses that Christians twist and pervert to promote the false belief that Yahshua had a hand in creation. The fact is though that it is proclaimed in Scripture and by Father Yahweh Himself in Scripture that He "ALONE, "BY HIMSELF" with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM. FATHER Yahweh's SON Yahshua Messiah never once proclaimed that he had created ANYTHING. Please see my web page for more in depth information of this truth.

Sparko

May 15th 2012, 10:14 PM

Yes, you could go on and on, but I am already quite familiar with the Scripture verses that Christians twist and pervert to promote the false belief that Yahshua had a hand in creation. The fact is though that it is proclaimed in Scripture and by Father Yahweh Himself in Scripture that He "ALONE, "BY HIMSELF" with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM. FATHER Yahweh's SON Yahshua Messiah never once proclaimed that he had created ANYTHING. Please see my web page for more in depth information of this truth.

LOL. I did no twisting. I quoted verbatum. I guess that means that even YOU know what the verses really say and it ticks you off.

Yes, Yahweh did it all by himself. And yet, John 1 and Colossians 1 say JESUS did it. And the Father is not Jesus.
The Holy Spirit is a person:

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Jesus says he will send ‘another’ counselor (the Holy Spirit) He calls the Spirit "Him", making the Holy Spirit a person.

The Holy Spirit is God:

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

So let's see...

Yahweh is the Creator, Jesus is the Creator. The Holy Spirit is Creator (Gen 1)
the Father and Jesus are distinct persons as is the Holy Spirit.
There is only one God.

Gee, the only answer is that God is a triune being!

That is the only way all the verses are true. Your way means you have to ignore scripture and it's plain words.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 17th 2012, 07:30 PM

LOL. I did no twisting. I quoted verbatum. I guess that means that even YOU know what the verses really say and it ticks you off.

Yes, Yahweh did it all by himself. And yet, John 1 and Colossians 1 say JESUS did it. And the Father is not Jesus.
The Holy Spirit is a person:

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Jesus says he will send ‘another’ counselor (the Holy Spirit) He calls the Spirit "Him", making the Holy Spirit a person.

The Holy Spirit is God:

Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

So let's see...

Yahweh is the Creator, Jesus is the Creator. The Holy Spirit is Creator (Gen 1)
the Father and Jesus are distinct persons as is the Holy Spirit.
There is only one God.

Gee, the only answer is that God is a triune being!

That is the only way all the verses are true. Your way means you have to ignore scripture and it's plain words.

No, I do not get ticked off when I know, understand, and perceive (see, hear) what Scripture truly says and teaches. In fact, I instead rejoice! Scripture clearly says and teaches that Father Yahweh ALL BY HIMSELF created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM.

But you say:

"Yes, Yahweh did it all by himself. And yet, John 1 and Colossians 1 say JESUS did it. And the Father is not Jesus." and "Yahweh is the Creator, Jesus is the Creator. The Holy Spirit is Creator (Gen 1)
the Father and Jesus are distinct persons as is the Holy Spirit."

Maybe you should thoroughly investigate why there is a clear confusing contradiction in what you have said! :smile:

I myself believe in ONE Creator Who is Father Yahweh "ALONE", but I see that you have three creators. I have yet to see Scriptural evidence from you that there are three creators and that Father Yahweh's set apart ["holy"] spirit is a person separate from Himself. Nowhere in Scripture does it ever say, make mention or teach "God is a triune being!" The Scriptural fact still remains that Yahchanan [John] 1 and Colossians 1 does not say or teach that Yahshua created ANYTHING! Twisted Scripture! What are we to do with them? I would strongly suggest harmonizing them! :smile:

No, Yahweh's way means that I have to adhere to exactly what Scripture says and teaches and to completely ignore the words that you have chosen to add and in turn take from His word. :smile:

Please see my web page for more in depth information of this truth.

...

Sparko

May 17th 2012, 07:39 PM

No, I do not get ticked off when I know, understand, and perceive (see, hear) what Scripture truly says and teaches. Scripture clearly says an teaches that Father Yahweh all by Himself created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM.

But you say:

"Yes, Yahweh did it all by himself. And yet, John 1 and Colossians 1 say JESUS did it. And the Father is not Jesus." and "Yahweh is the Creator, Jesus is the Creator. The Holy Spirit is Creator (Gen 1)
the Father and Jesus are distinct persons as is the Holy Spirit."

Maybe you should thoroughly investigate why there is a clear confusing contradiction in what you have said! :smile:

I myself believe in ONE Creator Who is Father Yahweh "ALONE", but I see that you have three creators. I have yet to see Scriptural evidence from you that there are three creators and that Father Yahweh's set apart ["holy"] spirit is a person separate from Himself. Nowhere in Scripture does it ever say, make mention or teach "God is a triune being!" The Scriptural fact still remains that Yahchanan [John] 1 and Colossians 1 does not say or teach that Yahshua created ANYTHING! Twisted Scripture! What are we to do with them? I would strongly suggest harmonizing them! :smile:

If the bible shows three creators, and says there is only one creator, then either the bible is wrong, or it is correct, and God is three persons yet one God. I tend to believe the bible is true and that if it shows three persons who are God, as it does, and that there is one God, then we have one God revealed as three distinct persons: the Trinity.

and I gave you scripture that shows three creators, and that the Holy Spirit was a person. I see that you have selective vision and choose to ignore any evidence that shows you wrong. I can't help that. But I will pray for you.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 17th 2012, 07:53 PM

If the bible shows three creators, and says there is only one creator, then either the bible is wrong, or it is correct, and God is three persons yet one God. I tend to believe the bible is true and that if it shows three persons who are God, as it does, and that there is one God, then we have one God revealed as three distinct persons: the Trinity.

and I gave you scripture that shows three creators, and that the Holy Spirit was a person. I see that you have selective vision and choose to ignore any evidence that shows you wrong. I can't help that. But I will pray for you.

IF the Bible shows three creators ..."? Where does ANY translation of Scripture ever say "There are three creators."? NOWHERE! :lol:

Sparko

May 17th 2012, 07:57 PM

IF the Bible shows three creators ..."? Where does ANY translation of Scripture ever say "There are three creators."? NOWHERE! LOL!

there is ONE creator, but three persons are each shown to be the creator. And I already gave you the verses. Go back and read them instead of pretending they don't exist.

Hey let's play your silly game. Where does ANY scripture say that "Jesus is NOT the Creator" Nowhere!!!! LOL!!

Frank4YAHWEH

May 17th 2012, 08:30 PM

there is ONE creator, but three persons are each shown to be the creator. And I already gave you the verses. Go back and read them instead of pretending they don't exist.

Hey let's play your silly game. Where does ANY scripture say that "Jesus is NOT the Creator" Nowhere!!!! LOL!!

Can you not see how contradictory, confusing and silly your statement "there is ONE creator, but THREE persons are each shown to be the creator." is? Make up your mind already! Either there is ONE creator or there are THREE creators. You can't have it both ways! :lol:

I can't go back and read them, since they simply are not there! :lol:

Hey let's play your silly game. Where does ANY scripture say that "Jesus is NOT the Creator" Nowhere!!!! LOL!!

Okay! Where does ANY scripture say that "Frank is NOT the Creator" Nowhere!!!! :lol:

Sparko

May 17th 2012, 09:13 PM

Can you not see how contradictory, confusing and silly your statement "there is ONE creator, but THREE persons are each shown to be the creator." is? Make up your mind already! Either there is ONE creator or there are THREE creators. You can't have it both ways! :lol:

I can't go back and read them, since they simply are not there! :lol:

Okay! Where does ANY scripture say that "Frank is NOT the Creator" Nowhere!!!! :lol:

There are none so blind as they who will not see. And you are the blindest Frank.

So what do you think Jesus was? Simply a human being? An Angel? Another God?

Frank4YAHWEH

May 17th 2012, 09:20 PM

There are none so blind as they who will not see. And you are the blindest Frank.

So what do you think Jesus was? Simply a human being? An Angel? Another God?

Me blind? Your the one with the avatar of pirate dog with a patch over the right eye! :lol:

Yahshua is clearly recorded in the so called "New Testament" as saying that he was a man or son of man and he is never once recorded as ever saying that he was an "angel" or "God". I will take his word for it! :wink:

Sparko

May 17th 2012, 09:34 PM

Yahshua is clearly recorded in the so called "New Testament" as saying that he was a man or son of man and he is never once recorded as ever saying that he was an "angel" or "God". I will take his word for it! :wink:

"Son of Man" refers to the being in Daniel 7, and when he told the Pharisees that he was the Son of Man and would be coming in power in the clouds they understood exactly what he was saying, that he was claiming to be God. That is why they crucified him!

they also knew he was calling himself God when he said "I and the Father are one"

John 10:33
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

also:
2 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
(the Father will not be appearing so it is referring to Jesus as "our Great God and Savior)

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

and even the Father calls Jesus "God"

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."* 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Like I said, I can go on and on showing you verse after verse that shows Jesus to be God and Creator. But you just keep pretending that the verses don't exist.

Remain in your blindness Frank. It is on your head.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 18th 2012, 07:55 PM

Sparko

May 18th 2012, 08:18 PM

I'm not blind! You are! :lol:

ah, the old "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument.

Well I guess you win then. I sure can't beat that, Mr. Pewee Herman.

:lmbo:

Frank4YAHWEH

May 18th 2012, 09:50 PM

"Son of Man" refers to the being in Daniel 7, and when he told the Pharisees that he was the Son of Man and would be coming in power in the clouds they understood exactly what he was saying, that he was claiming to be God. That is why they crucified him!

they also knew he was calling himself God when he said "I and the Father are one"

John 10:33
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

also:
2 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
(the Father will not be appearing so it is referring to Jesus as "our Great God and Savior)

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

and even the Father calls Jesus "God"

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."* 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Like I said, I can go on and on showing you verse after verse that shows Jesus to be God and Creator. But you just keep pretending that the verses don't exist.

Remain in your blindness Frank. It is on your head.

Yahshua clearly referred to himself as "son of man":

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the son of man am? (Mattithyah [Matthew] 16:13).

Reading this verse in context one can clearly see that no man at that time said Yahshua was "God", since they would have certainly informed him of such foolishness as this.

I have no idea where you got that Yahshua told the Pharisees that he was the Son of Man and would be coming in power in the clouds, since you gave no Scripture reference where he ever told the Pharisees this. I am aware that he did tell his disciples this though.

Yahshua in saying "I and my Father are one." was not saying that he was "God" and there is no evidence from the context of what Yahshua said to them that they were going to stone him for say this, since he said many other things before this that offended them. The fact is, they were falsely accusing him of blasphemy and claiming to be "God", when it is quite clear that he never made such a foolish claim as this and was not guilty of blasphemy in any manner. They were initially wanting to know if he was the Messiah (verse24). Yahshua even immediately corrected them in their false accusation:

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Yahshua said and inquired of them, "Many righteous works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?" The Jews answered him, saying, "For a righteous work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; because you, a mere man, claim to be God."" (verses 31-33).

Nowhere in the so-called "New Testament" is Yahshua ever recorded as proclaiming to be "God" to them nor has he ever blasphemed in any manner. When Yahshua said "I and my Father are one." he was not proclaiming to be "God". If one were to proclaim to be "God", they would simply come right our and proclaim to be "God" by simply saying "I am God!", which Yahshua never did. When he said "I and my Father are one." he was simply saying that he and his and our Father Yahweh were in unity and agreement with each other. In fact, in communion with his and our Father Yahweh Who is in heaven he told Him of his desire that the men that He had given him from the world also be one "EVEN AS WE ARE ONE":

I have given them the esteem that You gave me, that they may be one, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE: I in them, and You in me, that they may be made perfect IN ONE; and that the world may know that You have sent me, and have loved them, as You have loved me (Yahchanan [John] 17:22-23).

Yahshua was certainly not asking his and our Father Yahweh and desiring that his disciples and the apostles be "God"!

Your submission of the verse 2 Timothy 3:16 certainly does not have Yahshua proclaiming to be "God" or anyone else proclaiming him to be "God".

As for your submitting Titus 2:13 & 2 Peter 1:1 as evidence Yahshua is "God", you certainly must not be reading these verses correctly, since it is quite clear that there are two separate beings mentioned in theses verses, one being the Father being referenced to in translation as "our great God" and the second one being His son referenced to in translation as "Savior, Jesus Christ". And Yes, BOTH Father Yahweh and His son will be appearing.

As for your saying "and even the Father calls Jesus "God":

This passage in Hebrews 1:8-9 is actually a quote from Psalms 45:6-7 . The K.J.V. reads as follows:

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Verses five and seven are clear and plain; only verse six, as it reads in the K.J.V. is ambiguous. However, other versions clearly take away this ambiguity so that verse six agrees with other Scriptures: namely, there is only One true Mighty One ("Elohim, God, deity"). This one true Mighty One is Yahweh (Deuteronomy 6:4; John 17:3; Ephesians 4:4). According to many scholars Psalm 45:6 reads "Thy throne O Judge" instead of "O God" which in Hebrew or Greek has the same meanings so that in Hebrew it also could mean Judge instead of a trinitarian translation of the word theos which is generic and has many meanings.

Now, let us consult the following versions:

Targum

Your beauty, O King Messiah, is more stunning than any mortal’s; your lips are endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Due to this the Lord has blessed you forever.

ArtScroll Tenakh Translation

Your throne, O judge, will exist forever and ever; the scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.

Moffatt Translation

"Your throne shall stand for evermore; for, since your sceptre is a sceptre just, since right you love and evil you abhor, so God, your God, crowns you with bliss above your fellow-kings" (Psalm 45:6-7). This would be Yahweh, Yahshua's Mighty One. Yahshua has not crowned himself. Yahweh will crown him when the time is right (Matthew 25:31; Luke 1:32).

"He says of the Son, God is thy throne for ever and ever, ..." (Hebrews 1:8, Moffatt). Someone else is the Mighty One ("Elohim, God, deity"), not Yahshua. Yahshua's throne is Yahweh ("Elohim, God, deity").

New English Bible

"Your throne is like God's throne, eternal, your royal sceptre a sceptre of righteousness" (Psalm 45:6). Yahshua is not Yahweh ("Elohim, God, deity"). Instead, Yahshua's throne is like Yahweh's ("Elohim's, God's") throne.

"God is thy throne for ever and ever, ..." (Hebrews 1:8, Translator's footnote, N.E.B.).

Good News Bible

"Thy kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever, ..." (Psalm 45:6). In this case, the throne represents the kingdom.

"God is your kingdom ..." (Hebrews 1:8, Translator's footnote Good News Bible).

Jewish Publication Society, O.T., 1916

"Thy throne given by God is for ever and ever, ..." (Psalm 45:7). Yahshua is not declaired to be Yahweh ("Adonai, Elohim, God, deity"). Instead, Yahweh will give to Yahshua a throne which will last forever (Daniel 7:11-14; Luke 1:32; Revelation 3:21).

Isaac Leeser Translation

"Thy throne, given of God, endureth for ever: the sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore hath God, thy God anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy associates."

The Bible in Living English

'... but as to the Son "God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of integrity is the scepter of his reign".'

Revised Standard Version

"Your throne is a throne of God, ...:" (Psalm 45:6, R.S.V. Translator's footnote). The same notation is given in Hebrew 1:8, where this Scripture is quoted. This is true, because Yahshua is (at this time) sitting with the Father in the Father's throne. (Hebrews 1:3). Later, he will sit on his own throne, just as he now sits with the Father in the Father's throne (Revelation 3:21). A footnote in the New Revised Standard Version reads: 'Or, God is your throne ...'. A seperate footnote for the passage "... and the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of your ..." (the footnote in reference to "your" reads: 'other ancient authorities read his'.

American Standard Version

"Thy throne is the throne of God" (Margin: Psalm 45:6, A.S.V.).

Heinz W. Cassirer Version, N.T.

"... when referring to the Son he says, It is God who is your throne for ever and ever; and the sceptre showing forth the uprightness which you bear is the sceptre of God's kingdom. You have love righteousness and hated lawlessness. And so it is that God, who is your God, has has anointed you with the oil of gladness, giving you a greater share of it than any of your fellows.

Still quoting:

"Then there are these words: You, Lord [meaning Yahweh, Psalm 102:25], laid the foundations of the earth when it first took its rise, and the heavens are the work of thy hands" (Hebrews 1:8-10; cf. Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Isaiah 43:10, 44:24, 45:12-18).

There is no support here for "two Yahwehs or Yahshua's pre-existence as a creator or co-creator" or Yahshua being "God". Father Yahweh really is the Creator. He did it all ALONE, with no help (Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 33:6-9).

End Notes:

Weymouth Version N.T. (Translator's footnote, Hebrew 1:8).

Quote:

"8. O God] Psalm 45 is a Royal Marriage song, and this translation involves the direct address of an earthly king by the title 'God.' The obvious difficulty has led to various conjectures:

(1) 'Thy throne is the throne of God' (so R.V. margin in the Psalm).

(2) 'Thy throne is God for ever and ever.'

(3) A corrupt Hebrew text, 'Yahweh' (God), being a mistake for the almost identical word meaning 'shall be,' - 'Thy throne shall be for ever and ever,' This conjecture is widely accepted, but the writer of the Epistle [to the Hebrews], in applying these words of the Psalm to the Son, would not feel the difficulty; 'Thy throne, O God' may stand." (Emphasis added).

Weymouth indicates the word Yahweh (God) does not actually appear in the original text. If this is true, then the word 'O God' should not be in the first clause of Psalm 45:6, but should read as #3 above:

"Thy throne shall be for ever and ever ..." This is the way Moffatt reads in Psalm 45:6, noted above. The thought is, once Yahshua sits on his own throne (as heir to the throne of David), his rulership will endure forever. There is no support here for two Yahwehs, or for the pre-existence of Yahshua. It is a mistake to take an ambiuous verse in the King James Version and make it into a doctrine which opposes the cardinal principle of the Scriptures,

"Hear O Isryl: Yahweh our Mighty One is ONE YAHWEH" (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Gesenius Hebrew Grammer (Kautzsch-Cowley), 1949 reprint says, on page 415 paragraph (b): "In Psalm 45:7 chis-a-cha' El-o-him' (usually explained as thy divine throne). El-o-him' is most probably a later addition [another suggestion is to read chEl-o-him' like God('s throne: compare section 141 d, note]."

Sparko

May 18th 2012, 10:07 PM

Yahshua clearly referred to himself as "son of man":

No, he called himself THE Son of Man. Referring to Daniel 7 (coming in the clouds) - and the Jews recognized that the Son of Man in Daniel 7 was divine.

I have no idea where you got that Yahshua told the Pharisees that he was the Son of Man and would be coming in power in the clouds, since you gave no Scripture reference where he ever told the Pharisees this. I am aware that he did tell his disciples this though.

Reallly? You have just lost all credibility, Frank. Do you know your scripture so poorly?

Matt 26:64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

Mark 14:62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The rest of you post is the same old drivel, you denying what the scripture says and thinking that refutes me. :rofl:

You are not worth the effort of debate Frank. And your website is about the ugliest and hardest to read piece of crap I have seen in a long time. My goodness man, buy a good web editing program! Use some predesigned templates if you have to, but your site makes you look like a crazy fool.

Oh wait, Never mind. carry on.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 18th 2012, 10:17 PM

No, he called himself THE Son of Man. Referring to Daniel 7 (coming in the clouds) - and the Jews recognized that the Son of Man in Daniel 7 was divine.

Reallly? You have just lost all credibility, Frank. Do you know your scripture so poorly?

Matt 26:64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

Mark 14:62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The rest of you post is the same old drivel, you denying what the scripture says and thinking that refutes me. :rofl:

You are not worth the effort of debate Frank. And your website is about the ugliest and hardest to read piece of crap I have seen in a long time. My goodness man, buy a good web editing program! Use some predesigned templates if you have to, but your site makes you look like a crazy fool.

Oh wait, Never mind. carry on.

All that foolishness that you spew and still you can not present any Scriptural evidence to your false doctrine "Jesus IS God!" ? :sigh:

Sparko

May 19th 2012, 08:45 AM

All that foolishness that you spew and still you can not present any Scriptural evidence to your false doctrine "Jesus IS God!" ? :sigh:

Well at this point I will just call you a damned liar.

I have provided a LOT of scriptural evidence that Jesus is God. You just choose to ignore it.

see:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7343-Did-Jesus-Christ-preexist-His-birth-in-Bethlehem&p=3404431#post3404431

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7343-Did-Jesus-Christ-preexist-His-birth-in-Bethlehem&p=3404590#post3404590

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7343-Did-Jesus-Christ-preexist-His-birth-in-Bethlehem&p=3407388#post3407388

RBerman

May 20th 2012, 09:57 PM

Don't feed the trolls. It's hardly necessary for Jesus to say "I am GOD." He doesn't say those words, but he does claim for himself prerogatives and characteristics which belong to God alone, and it's crystal-clear that the Jewish authorities rightly understood him to be claiming divinity, which is why they charged him with blasphemy rather than simply insurrection. Jesus never responds to the blasphemy charges with "Oh, I'm not claiming to be God." Quite the opposite; the more he answers the chief priest, the more agitated the priest becomes.

apostoli

May 21st 2012, 06:18 AM

Sparko,

Just a memo from one friend to another...

After all these years I'm surprised to find you involved in the semantic trap. What Frank4YAHWEH is demanding should be so familiar to you = there is only one individual/person who is "the one true God" (cp. Jn 17:3). In my observation he is branding you with Sabellianism (at least in his own mind) and to be honest your argumentation has been bordering on that path and thus confirming his opinion (at least in his own mind and others).

The Orthodox position (RCC, EOC, OOC, COC, ROC, CoE, various protestant & reformists etc) is that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. Thus in this respect when we talk of God, in respect of first principle (the unmoved, mover), we refer to the Father as the one true God. In my observation Frank4YAHWEH hasn't gotten past this essential truth and therefore, in what I perceive as his disbelief in God's witness of his pre-incarnate Son, Frank4YAHWEH indicates he rejects a significant amount of scripture eg: John 1:1-3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:3. What Frank4YAHWEH doesn't seem to be aware of is the church has never taught that there are "three persons that are one God" in the way he wants to understand the phrase (Sabellianism). What the church has consistantly taught is that the Father, Son and Spirit are homoousia and thus the one God revealed to us (experience one, you have experienced the three cp. Jn 12:45; 14:9; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16).

Sparko, I'm sure you are aware that most of the scriptures to which you resorted to argue your point are grammatically disputed (and/or disputed on the basis of mss variation). An exception being 2 Peter 1:1 which is disputed on textual grounds. So they have no effect on the obstinate and not worth resorting too unless one is intent on picking a fight rather than progressing discussion. In some cases Frank4YAHWEH responses were reasonable in as must as he went to the effort of citing variations in reading/translation.

One thing that disappointed me greatly in your sparing with Frank4YAHWEH was your abandonment of the homoousia poistion when you appealed to John 1:1c. As any authoritative Koine grammarian will tell you, the text does not nominate the Logos as being God (especially the God with whom he is with = I presume Frank4YAHWEH viewpoint), and is incorrectly understood as declaring the "Word was God'. Authoritative, orthodox grammarians, as you should well know, explain the original Greek designates that "What God was and is, the Logos was and is" - here we are dealing with quality, and I'd encourage you to emphasise that point which is consistently reinforced throughout John's Gospel, especially at Jn 12:45 & 14:9.

Frank4YAHWEH seems to be just another JW type (same argument) so it might be worth comparing Genesis 18 and John 8:40,58 and determine who the man Abraham saw, fed & chatted with and who Jesus claimed he was...

It isn't my intent to criticise but encourage towards more constructive discussions...

Sparko

May 21st 2012, 10:55 AM

I am done with Frank. He is unteachable. But thank you for your comments. As far as sabellism goes, I thought I was pretty clear in stating that the persons of the trinity were distinct persons not one person in three roles, but perhaps I was not.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 03:04 PM

Well at this point I will just call you a damned liar.

I have provided a LOT of scriptural evidence that Jesus is God. You just choose to ignore it.

see:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7343-Did-Jesus-Christ-preexist-His-birth-in-Bethlehem&p=3404431#post3404431

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7343-Did-Jesus-Christ-preexist-His-birth-in-Bethlehem&p=3404590#post3404590

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7343-Did-Jesus-Christ-preexist-His-birth-in-Bethlehem&p=3407388#post3407388

You have not posted one shred of Scriptural evidence to the foolish, false, deceptive and demonic doctrine "Jesus IS God!"

It is you that is the DAMNED Liar! :lol:

All accusations of lying must be substantiated whenever the charge is made

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 03:24 PM

Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word (Scripture) is correct and it is you that is DEAD wrong! :lol:

Sparko

May 21st 2012, 03:29 PM

so, anybody here like bacon?

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 03:33 PM

so, anybody here like bacon?

It is quite obvious that you pig out! :lol:

Sparko

May 21st 2012, 03:35 PM

It is quite obvious that you pig out! :lol:

did it take you long to come up with that?

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 03:42 PM

did it take you long to come up with that?

About as long as it took for you to fall into a pit follow the blind! :lol:

Sparko

May 21st 2012, 03:45 PM

About as long as it took for you to fall into a pit follow the blind! :lol:

So do you like bacon? and if so, do you like it crispy, or soggy?

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 03:51 PM

So do you like bacon? and if so, do you like it crispy, or soggy?

I love my Butterball turkey bacon crispy! :lol:

Sparko

May 21st 2012, 03:55 PM

I love my Butterball turkey bacon crispy! :lol:

that's not bacon. might as well eat tofu.

Real bacon is pork.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 04:18 PM

that's not bacon. might as well eat tofu.

Real bacon is pork.

The times they are a changin'! Turkey bacon is the real bacon now! I like tofu bacon too! :lol:

Sparko

May 21st 2012, 04:18 PM

The times they are a changin'! Turkey bacon is the real bacon now! I like tofu too! :lol:

That figures.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 04:21 PM

That figures.

Sure it does! :lol:

apostoli

May 21st 2012, 08:27 PM

You have not posted one shred of Scriptural evidence to the foolish, false, deceptive and demonic doctrine "Jesus IS God!"Though Sparko did provide you with the often cited texts, he was remiss in not pointing you to Col 2:9 which emphatically states that Jesus was τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος = fully God. The word A.Paul chose to use was θεότητος (theotēs) which though often translated "Godhead" literally means "the state of being God".

You, yourself are particularly unimaginative in decrying an idea that most people here at TWEB don't teach or believe in = "Jesus IS God!". Your insinuation has been rejected by the Trinitarian churches since it (sabellianism) raised its head in the 3rd century. Following the emphatic statements of scripture, the church has simply taught that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father (Jn 12:45; 14:9) and that the Son has the direct imprint of his Father's hypostasis (the word used by the author of Hebrews 1:3). In short they are one in ousia and physis (terms gleaned from scripture and used by the early church) and thus homoousius (a term applied and redefined in the 4th century, that while not found in scripture sums up the witness of scripture = "And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me").

Frank4YAHWEH

May 21st 2012, 10:41 PM

Though Sparko did provide you with the often cited texts, he was remiss in not pointing you to Col 2:9 which emphatically states that Jesus was τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος = fully God. The word A.Paul chose to use was θεότητος (theotēs) which though often translated "Godhead" literally means "the state of being God".

You, yourself are particularly unimaginative in decrying an idea that most people here at TWEB don't teach or believe in = "Jesus IS God!". Your insinuation has been rejected by the Trinitarian churches since it (sabellianism) raised its head in the 3rd century. Following the emphatic statements of scripture, the church has simply taught that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father (Jn 12:45; 14:9) and that the Son has the direct imprint of his Father's hypostasis (the word used by the author of Hebrews 1:3). In short they are one in ousia and physis (terms gleaned from scripture and used by the early church) and thus homoousius (a term applied and redefined in the 4th century, that while not found in scripture sums up the witness of scripture = "And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me").

Well, I am still be waiting for you or anyone else to post any Scriptural evidence to the foolish, false, deceptive, and demonic doctrines "Jesus IS God!" or the pre-existence of Yahshua.

apostoli

May 22nd 2012, 12:52 AM

Well, I am still be waiting for you or anyone else to post any Scriptural evidence to the foolish, false, deceptive, and demonic doctrines "Jesus IS God!"Given Trinitarians don't believe "Jesus IS God!" = "Jesus is the Father!", which is unsupported by scripture, no one can given a scriptural response to what you rightly call a foolish, false, deceptive, and demonic doctrine.

I noticed on your blog that you couldn't bring yourself to admit that Jesus is the Son of God. An admission scripture gives as a pre-requisite to obtaining eternal life! And an admission that Trinitarian doctrine therefore demands and emphasises!

or the pre-existence of Yahshua.Read Hebrews 1:1-3 which explicitly says that through the Son, God made the worlds (some translations render ages). Col 1:13-17 tells us the same thing, as does John 1:1-3 (albeit the Son in the guise of the Logos). Interestingly, the ancient Aramaic Targums that were/are read in every synagogue to explain the reading of the Hebrew scriptures (which few since the time of Ezra have understood from the Hebrew), refers to the "memra of YHWH" (the Word/Logos of God) whenever the KJVs rendering "angel of the LORD" is encountered. Anyone with any world perception would realise the world existed before the Son's incarnation, he born of Mary and was called Jesus in the Greek language. So, if God made the worlds/ages through the Son as scripture explicitly states, then the Son pre-exists the worlds/ages.

Frank4YAHWEH

May 22nd 2012, 03:46 PM

Given Trinitarians don't believe "Jesus IS God!" = "Jesus is the Father!", which is unsupported by scripture, no one can given a scriptural response to what you rightly call a foolish, false, deceptive, and demonic doctrine.

I noticed on your blog that you couldn't bring yourself to admit that Jesus is the Son of God. An admission scripture gives as a pre-requisite to obtaining eternal life! And an admission that Trinitarian doctrine therefore demands and emphasises!

Read Hebrews 1:1-3 which explicitly says that through the Son, God made the worlds (some translations render ages). Col 1:13-17 tells us the same thing, as does John 1:1-3 (albeit the Son in the guise of the Logos). Interestingly, the ancient Aramaic Targums that were/are read in every synagogue to explain the reading of the Hebrew scriptures (which few since the time of Ezra have understood from the Hebrew), refers to the "memra of YHWH" (the Word/Logos of God) whenever the KJVs rendering "angel of the LORD" is encountered. Anyone with any world perception would realise the world existed before the Son's incarnation, he born of Mary and was called Jesus in the Greek language. So, if God made the worlds/ages through the Son as scripture explicitly states, then the Son pre-exists the worlds/ages.

Nowhere on my blog will you ever find me denying that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh. If you would have read enough into my blog post you would know full well that we do believe that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh.

As to the false pre-existence doctrine, many base their believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being on a few Greek words translated as "by" and "through" when there are some 107 Scripture passages that clearly make known that Father Yahweh "ALONE", "BY HIMSELF" and with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM. It is quite clear from these Scriptures that Father Yahweh did not create "through" or "by" his son as a pre-existent being.

Hebrews 1:2 has been translated properly in the Diaglott as follows:

Yahweh "... in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; ..."

Another acceptable translation would be, "... a Son, FOR whom he created the world."

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). Following are the diverse ways the Greek word di' or dia has been translated in the KJV:

by - 243 times
through - 100 times
for - 106 times
because - 24 times
because of - 29 times
for the sake of - 32 times
etc.

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), see my blog entry: "Hebrews 1:2 - Berry (http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/759287296/hebrews-12)."

apostoli

May 23rd 2012, 02:58 AM

Nowhere on my blog will you ever find me denying that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh. If you would have read enough into my blog post you would know full well that we do believe that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh.I couldn't find anywhere in your blogs where you advocated the sonship - in fact I noticed you edited A.John's testimony to what appears to be an avoidance of declaring Jesus being Son of God. I'd give your statement about believing Jesus to be Son of God credibility if you had quoted A.John's testimony in full "but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).

The only other thing I found on your blog is where you post "YAHSHUA: SON OF ELOHIM By Voy Wilks" which concentrates on Jesus not being elohim. So, I need you to explain in what way Jesus is the son of the living God. Do you mean metaphorically, physically, functionally and/or metaphysically? Do you mean he is son by adoption, by appointment or true son? Do you mean he is son conditionally or intrinsically.

As to the false pre-existence doctrine, many base their believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being on a few Greek words...Which is a shame given the wealth of material available in the NT that testifies to the Son's pre-existence - especially Jesus' own testimony...For instance, when Jesus' disciples were shaken by Jesus saying "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you", Jesus shortly after declared "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (John 6:53-62).

An interesting scripture is 1 John 4:1-2 = "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God". It is obvious that as son of man Jesus "came in the flesh", so in your opinion how is A.John's test relevent? An answer might be found at John 3:31.

As to the false pre-existence doctrine, many base their believe that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being on a few Greek words translated as "by" and "through" when there are some 107 Scripture passages that clearly make known that Father Yahweh "ALONE", "BY HIMSELF" and with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM. It is quite clear from these Scriptures that Father Yahweh did not create "through" or "by" his son as a pre-existent being.It would do you well to read those 107 scriptural passages and note the context in which they are said. Rabinical (and even Messianic) literature is replete with postulations that YHWH was not alone in the creation process - albeit his co-workers are estimated to have been angels. Genesis 1:26 makes it obvious that God was not alone in the creation process, albeit he is the direct source and cause of all that was created.

An interesting fact is that in the OT the Israelites had no conception of God as Father (at least in the NT sense), so your ascertian that "107 Scripture passages that clearly make known that Father Yahweh "ALONE", "BY HIMSELF" and with "NO ONE BESIDE HIM" created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM" is erroneous. These things in the OT are said of YHWH.

John 8:40 comes to mind. Moses identified the man that Abraham fed and spoke with was YHWH (Genesis 18). The Rabbi explain that all visitations were that of the Memra of YHWH (the Word of God/the angel of the LORD). and there is & was Rabbinic discussion as to whether the Memra of YHWH was in fact the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, and therefore the God of Moses = the YHWH coming to earth being the manifestation of the YHWH in heaven - Philo (a pre-christianity Jew) comes immediately to mind.

Hebrews 1:2 has been translated properly in the Diaglott...Only "properly" in your own mind. The bulk of authoritive grammarians and lexicographers I've come across (even non-trinitarians who deny the pre-existence of Christ) agree on the standard understanding of the Greek syntax at Heb 1:2 (through, by, by means of). It is the context of dia that controls the translation (not dogmatics) δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας. The word that governs the translation here is "καὶ". The referent of καὶ is the subject of οὗ which is the υἱῷ.

Hebrews 1:2 has been translated properly in the Diaglott as follows:

Yahweh "... in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; ..."
Another acceptable translation would be, "... a Son, FOR whom he created the world."Interestingly, both renderings would require the pre-existence of the "a son" in the understanding of the typical Jew (especially a first century Jew).

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). Following are the diverse ways the Greek word di' or dia has been translated in the KJV:

by - 243 times
through - 100 times
for - 106 times
because - 24 times
because of - 29 times
for the sake of - 32 times
etc.

Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as "for," "because of," "therefore" (meaning "for this reason"). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), see my blog entry: "Hebrews 1:2 - Berry."I'll direct you to the non-trinitarian lexicographer Thayer so you can understand the contextual meaning of dia at Hebrews 1:2...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1223&t=ESV

Instruction: Scroll down to the section headed "Thayer's Lexicon", then click on the line that reads "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry" to get the full text. Have an enlightening read...

Frank4YAHWEH

May 23rd 2012, 05:26 PM

Well, you certainly have missed what it is that I believe and confess because I most certainly have made it quite clear on all on my web pages and blogs that I do confess and believe that Yahshua is the son of Father Yahweh. What I do not confess and believe is "Jesus IS God!", since nowhere in Scripture am I ever asked to believe such foolishness and nowhere does it teach such foolishness. It seems you twist my words just as you twist the inspired prophetic word of Father Yahweh.

You need not respond, since I will no longer be participating in this forum discussion or any other discussion on theologyweb. I certainly do not appreciate being called a damned liar when I have never lied.

eudyptes

May 23rd 2012, 07:50 PM

apostoli

May 23rd 2012, 09:03 PM

emphasis mine

....no...not so much

that is one of the hardest websites to navigate I've seen since the mid 90s.......Ain't it so! The trouble is he has multiple websites, or so I accidently discovered when I clicked on one of his links. It seems the only way to navigate is to do a google. So this morning I searched on "son of God Frank4YAHWEH" and came up with another of his pages wherein he links to another website which does explain his ideas concerning the sonship.
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/730577272/is-yahshua-the-son-of-god-or-is-he-not/
http://www.seekwhatistruth.com/studies/is-yahshua-the-son-of-god-or-is-he-not/part-iii

It appears he believes Mary was impregnated with YHWH's sperm. The author of the website (David Smith) asks [i]"Can you tell me what you think happened for Mary to have been “found with child of the Holy Spirit?”(Mt 1:18) 1] Did Yahweh’s sperm unite with Mary’s egg or 2] Did Yahweh form his own embryo and place it in Mary’s womb? It has to be #1 because “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20)".

Sparko

May 23rd 2012, 09:47 PM

:lolo:

ttruscott

May 24th 2012, 06:38 PM

Here is something I posted on another thread here, that I think is applicable. egeneto in John 1:14, incorrectly translated "was made" in the KJV, is in the Second Aorist, Middle Deponent, Indicative mood. Which means that the subject was the doer or performer of the action. And who is the subject of John 1:14? The logoV.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word logoV was made [became] egeneto flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
When Jesus prayed in John 17:5, "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." People who deny Jesus' preexsistence say this was sorta, kinda like the gleam in God's eye. Forgetting for the moment that, "glory" is NOT "gleam," had that been Jesus meaning, would He not have said that?

Also it is ridiculous to assume that Jesus was asking to return to a pre-life state, i.e. gleam in God's eye, when He prayed in the garden that the cup of death be taken from Him. John 1:14 clearly refutes this grabbing at straws. This assumption also forces the question, "Was Jesus no longer a gleam in God's eye after His incarnation?"

Note that in John 1:14 Jesus is the doer or performer of His becoming. The only way this could be was if Jesus did exist before His incarnation as much more than the thought, idea, plan, or simply the spoken word of God, or the incredibly weak "gleam in God's eye."

Do you apply this reasoning to
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

...I do.

Peace, Ted

ttruscott

May 24th 2012, 07:07 PM

Christ's pre-existence = our pre-existence... :cool:

JOHN'S BEGINNING

For another take on John's understanding of pre-existance...

This category has to do with the apostle John's use of the word "beginning" in his first letter:

1 John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning… the Word of life.

This introduction is very similar to the one John used in his gospel, which begins with: “In the beginning was the Word.” I believe that both refer to the same time, and that this time is synonymous with the time in Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning. Thus these three references refer to the time before (or at the front of) the six days of the (re?)creation of the world.

1 John 2:7 - I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

I can not help but think that John was alluding to Isaiah 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded?. If he is not alluding to Isaiah, he certainly is referring to the same truth in my opinion.

1 John 2:14 - I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning.

It probably is not necessary, but for the last time, “that is” is not in the Greek text. Therefore, in Greek, it reads, “known Him from the beginning.”

1 John 2:24 - Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

It should be noted that in the Bible, “the beginning” usually refers to all the time and events that happened before Genesis 1:2, viz., the time when the angels were created and the rebellion in Paradise took place.

1 John 3:8 - for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's commentary(#27) says: “sinneth from the beginning - from the time that sin began; from the time that he became what he is, the devil.” This must be around the same time as ‘In the beginning’ of Genesis 1:1. At least, it can not be much after.

1 John 3:11 - For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us. 1 John 3:23 - And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
According to 2:7, we heard this commandment “from the beginning.”

Conclusion for John's Beginning.

When the word “beginning” has to do with Jesus or the devil, it means around the same time as Genesis 1:1 , that is, before or at the beginning of the six day creation (depending how one translates the “was - became” in Genesis 1:2).

Are we really warranted in redefining it whenever it refers to us? I know that it has been redefined to fit in with the traditional presuppositions regarding the creation of our spirit, but does this not constitute a twisting or taking Scripture out of context?

According to preconception theology, each of these references, by the same author, in the same letter, has the same meaning.

To my mind, this is much superior to two definitions of the same word, in the same letter, by the same author.

Why did John not use two different words if he meant two different times? I do not think that John was mixed up. In fact, I think he knew very well exactly what he was saying. He seems to be very good at saying it over, and over, and over, and over…

Peace, Ted

barley

May 18th 2013, 12:18 PM

runtmc2jc

May 22nd 2013, 12:57 PM

God certainly foreknew Jesus Christ

I Peter 1:20

" who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,"

even as He foreknew us

Romans 8:29

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

God calls those things which be not as though they were

Romans 4:17

" (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

God foreknew us, but that does not make us nor qualifies us to be God.

Likewise, God foreknew the logos, the scriptures, ie, your Bible and the logos, Jesus Christ, His son. That God foreknew these does not qualify them or make them God either. God being the primary logos, message, he communicates His himself, His message in sundry times and in divers manners including scripture, the prophets and by His son Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:1-3

Most certainly, the son of God, (because of his decision and follow through to be fully and perfectly and lovingly obedient to his Father, God), is the best communication of God by being God's message in the flesh. However, it is the word that God magnified above His name. Psalm 138:2

Jesus Christ as the son of God humbled himself before God by believing and adhering to the words of God no matter the cost to himself.

barley

since John states Jesus was the Word, and the Word became flesh, what did the "Word" look like prior to incarnation ??? a God/man like Jesus ??? I personally can't see that, since that combination didn't exist until the incarnation.... so I'm left with the notion that the Spirit that indwelt the God/man was the pre-existent, eternal "word of God" ... it was this Spirit that pre-existed, as the word and the creator, one with the God-head... later to be incarnate as a man, and then still later, after His obedience unto death, and resurrection, he sits at the right hand of the "father", (perhaps where 'he' formerly sat), as a distinct personhood... the glorified one, the lamb that was slain, the ascended word-made-flesh... my mind can grasp this, although I freely admit I/we may never know the full nature of this mystery until we are 'there'....

barley

May 22nd 2013, 01:12 PM

since John states Jesus was the Word, and the Word became flesh, what did the "Word" look like prior to incarnation ??? a God/man like Jesus ??? I personally can't see that, since that combination didn't exist until the incarnation.... so I'm left with the notion that the Spirit that indwelt the God/man was the pre-existent, eternal "word of God" ... it was this Spirit that pre-existed, as the word and the creator, one with the God-head... later to be incarnate as a man, and then still later, after His obedience unto death, and resurrection, he sits at the right hand of the "father", (perhaps where 'he' formerly sat), as a distinct personhood... the glorified one, the lamb that was slain, the ascended word-made-flesh... my mind can grasp this, although I freely admit I/we may never know the full nature of this mystery until we are 'there'....

Word, as in logos.

What does the word "logos" mean?

it is the thoughts behind the words used, it is a message, not focussing so much on the words used, but the intent of the message, it is a message, the spoken word as opposed to simply definitions and grammar.

Thus it is used of scriptures

It is used of God, who is the author of the scriptures

It is used of Jesus Christ, the son of God, who lovingly, humbly, completely, and perfectly believed and believes the scriptures that pertain to his life according to God's intent for His son's life.

John 1 makes reference to the logos, but not all references pertain to all the ways God's logos, the scriptures, uses the term logos.

a. a reference to God

b. a reference to His scriptures

c. a reference to His son

The logos became flesh and dwelt among us. God's word as given in Genesis 3:15 became flesh, it was no longer black ink on a scroll, uttered by God in the garden, it became flesh.

Likewise with all the prophecies in the OT that foretold of the messiah's first earthly ministry.

Jesus Christ lived God's word, His logos, therefore, the son of God is rightfully called the logos.

God calls those things we be not as though they were, therefore God could speak of the future accomplishments of His son even before Jesus Christ existed, (except in the foreknowledge of God)

Not one verse in John, nor the entire scriptures support the notion of a trinity nor that Jesus is God himself.

Rather the scriptures were written that we might believe that Jesus is the anointed one, the son of God.

barley

RBerman

May 22nd 2013, 05:34 PM

Not one verse in John, nor the entire scriptures support the notion of a trinity nor that Jesus is God himself.

Then Jesus sure missed a golden opportunity to correct the Pharisees, because the Pharisees understood Jesus to be saying that he was equal with God. (John 6:33) On what grounds do you, 2000 years later and living in a totally different culture, say that the Pharisees mistook Jesus' meaning?

Sparko

May 22nd 2013, 06:08 PM

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

note: in titus, God the Father will not do any "appearing" since he is invisible. The only one coming back and appearing is Jesus.

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

barley

May 22nd 2013, 09:29 PM

Then Jesus sure missed a golden opportunity to correct the Pharisees, because the Pharisees understood Jesus to be saying that he was equal with God. (John 6:33) On what grounds do you, 2000 years later and living in a totally different culture, say that the Pharisees mistook Jesus' meaning?

Oh, let's see, how about Jesus Christ's own words?

"The Father is greater than all" John 10:29

By the way, you might want to look up John 6:33. Did you mean John 10:33 which is four verses after Jesus himself that "the Father is greater than all"

You have completely ignored context. You have ignored scriptures to your own hurt.

Shame on you!

barley

RBerman

May 23rd 2013, 01:40 AM

Oh, let's see, how about Jesus Christ's own words?

"The Father is greater than all" John 10:29

By the way, you might want to look up John 6:33. Did you mean John 10:33 which is four verses after Jesus himself that "the Father is greater than all"

You have completely ignored context. You have ignored scriptures to your own hurt.

Shame on you!

barley

I accept your correction: I did indeed mean to type "John 10:33." Thank you. As for the meaning of that verse, the Pharisees who heard Jesus say "the Father is greater than all" are the same ones who understood that Jesus was nonetheless equating himself with God, and thus claiming that he too was greater than all of them.

The word "all" is always context delimited. When Paul in Romans 3:23 says that, "all have sinned" but can be saved through Jesus, we are to understand that he intends to exclude Jesus from his statement. When Paul says "All who are in Asia turned away from me," (2 Tim 1:15) and then goes on to name friends he has in Asia, we are to understand that he intends to exclude those friends from his statement. In the same vein, when Jesus says, "the Father is greater than all" followed by "I and the Father are one," we are to understand that by the second statement, he intends to exclude himself from the first statement.

barley

May 23rd 2013, 07:06 AM

I accept your correction: I did indeed mean to type "John 10:33." Thank you. As for the meaning of that verse, the Pharisees who heard Jesus say "the Father is greater than all" are the same ones who understood that Jesus was nonetheless equating himself with God, and thus claiming that he too was greater than all of them.

The word "all" is always context delimited. When Paul in Romans 3:23 says that, "all have sinned" but can be saved through Jesus, we are to understand that he intends to exclude Jesus from his statement. When Paul says "All who are in Asia turned away from me," (2 Tim 1:15) and then goes on to name friends he has in Asia, we are to understand that he intends to exclude those friends from his statement. In the same vein, when Jesus says, "the Father is greater than all" followed by "I and the Father are one," we are to understand that by the second statement, he intends to exclude himself from the first statement.

That would be a legitimate position if those were the only verses in scripture.

However, they are not.

Jesus Christ said in another place as well that the Father is greater. John 14:28

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Evidently, Jesus Christ found it necessary to repeat himself, for some of his disciples were not getting it!

There are not a few scriptures that make it clear that Jesus considered himself inferior, derived and subordinate to the Father.

John 5:19-20,30

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

Clearly Jesus understood that as the son of God, he came from the Father. He was not co-equal nor co -eternal with the Father.

"Can do nothing of myself" is not God speaking, it is the son of God speaking

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

David and Peter spoke of the lord Jesus Christ's inferiority and subordination to the Father.

Acts 2:34-35

"For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool."

Even this little sampling of scriptural evidence is overwhelming.

Jesus is the son of God and as such was derived and inferior to God, his Father.

When Jesus statement in John 10:30 is read in context it is referring to oneness in purpose, not identity.

John 10:28-29

Do I need to remind you statement about the Pharisee's error in understanding Jesus Christ? and for that matter why they and trinitarians alike make the same error in judgement?

barley

RumTumTugger

May 23rd 2013, 04:15 PM

Why Did you ignore Sparko's post Barley. could it be because you can't spin away the clear reading of the passages he quoted?

OmniSkeptical

May 23rd 2013, 04:40 PM

I have noticed how Tyndale renders John 1:3, "All things were made through it." Really, salvation has nothing to do with the afterlife anymore, so please pretend not to taste death somewhere else.

barley

May 23rd 2013, 06:33 PM

Why Did you ignore Sparko's post Barley. could it be because you can't spin away the clear reading of the passages he quoted?

Which one was that?

RBerman

May 23rd 2013, 06:34 PM

That would be a legitimate position if those were the only verses in scripture.

Well, we're getting somewhere at least if you acknowledge that, at least in isolation, John 10 can reasonably be thought to teach the full divinity of Jesus. Earlier in this thread, I thought I recalled someone (you?) claiming that no passages in Scripture pointed in that direction. So at least we've established that Trinitarian doctrine is not completely groundless.

However, they are not. Jesus Christ said in another place as well that the Father is greater.

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Evidently, Jesus Christ found it necessary to repeat himself, for some of his disciples were not getting it! There are not a few scriptures that make it clear that Jesus considered himself inferior, derived and subordinate to the Father.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,[B] The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Clearly Jesus understood that as the son of God, he came from the Father. He was not co-equal nor co -eternal with the Father. "Can do nothing of myself" is not God speaking, it is the son of God speaking.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

First of all, Jesus does not address the issue of his own eternality (or lack thereof) in these passages. (But he does when he defends his own power, authority, and reputation by saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM" in John 8:58!)

As for John 5, this passage is actually powerful proof of the divinity of Jesus. No Jew would have ever dared to say something like, "Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." (v23) or, "as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will," (v21) and certainly not, "that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." (v23 again) What blasphemy that would have been to claim honor and power comparable to that of the Father! No created being will ever deserve that sort of comparison, not the mightiest angel, the devoutest man, or any other creature. But the capstone is a few verses prior:

Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Take this in its two parts. First, the second sentence. John states it as a fact that Jesus was "making himself equal with God" in the particular way that he called God "Father." This is not just the mistaken opinion of Pharisees or unbelieving Jews; this is God, speaking through John, editorially explaining what Jesus meant by what he said.

What was it about Jesus' comment about work in John 5:17 that constituted a claim of equality with God? Don Carson has a nice little article (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/loveofgod/2013/03/15/exodus-26-john-5-proverbs-2-galatians-1/) on this verse in its first century context. I'll quote a little here, but really the whole thing is valuable reading for this discussion:

When challenged about his “working” on the Sabbath, [Jesus] does not offer a different reading of what “Sabbath” means, or suggest that what he was doing was not “work” but some deed of mercy or necessity; rather, he justifies his “working” by saying that he is only doing what his Father does. His Father works (even on the Sabbath, or providence itself would cease!), and so does he... First, he insists he is functionally dependent on his Father: “the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing” (5:19). Jesus is not another “God-center”: he is functionally subordinate to his Father. Yet second, this functional subordination is itself grounded in the fact that this Son does whatever the Father does (5:19)...

The only person who can claim to "do whatever the Father does" is God. Jesus created all things (Col 1:16), which is what God did (Rev 4:11). None of this would have been lost on Jesus' Jewish audience; the transcendent uniqueness of God was their sore point in opposition to the henotheism of Rome and Athens.

David and Peter spoke of the lord Jesus Christ's inferiority and subordination to the Father.

"For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool."

Even this little sampling of scriptural evidence is overwhelming. Jesus is the son of God and as such was derived and inferior to God, his Father.

Derived from the Father in the sense of begotten, yes. (We'd have to discuss what that concept meant to its audience, though.) Subordinate to God, yes, at least within the context of Jesus' earthly mission. Inferior to God? Depends on what sort of inferiority you mean. Subordination is a kind of functional inferiority, but it need not imply ontological inferiority. A high ranking sergeant may be much more experienced and wise than the green 2nd lieutenant to whom he subordinates himself.

When Jesus statement in John 10:30 is read in context it is referring to oneness in purpose, not identity.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Do I need to remind you statement about the Pharisee's error in understanding Jesus Christ? and for that matter why they and trinitarians alike make the same error in judgement?

None of us dispute that Jesus and the Father had the same purpose. The question is whether that is all that Jesus meant in saying, "I and the Father are one." Who was going to stone Jesus for saying that he wanted to follow God's purpose? Nobody. The charge was not "trying to have God's purpose." The charge was blasphemy, by claiming uniquely divine prerogatives and characteristics. You are not qualified to say that the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus' intent. They were there. You were not. If the crucifixion were all a big misunderstanding, Jesus could have simply said, "Whoah, wait a second, guys. I'm not God. I'm just his Son and his servant." Instead, Jesus repeatedly claims unity with God, claims the honor due God, claims the powers of God, accepts worship as God.

That is why Jesus is the "radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature." (Heb 1:3) The word for "imprint" there carries the idea of an exact copy, cut from the same mold. Jesus has a nature exactly the same as God's nature. To say that Jesus is the radiance of God's glory is to say that if you have known and seen Jesus, you have known and seen God. Which of course, Jesus himself said as well. (John 14:7)