Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem?

[AVmetro]

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. 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]

Ron Macy stated:

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Harner argues cogently that qualitative 'theos' is not the same thing as 'theios'.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I don’t have Harner’s cogent argument. Could you supply it?

Certainly. Harner's argument is cited and disscussed in some detail here.

Apologists Bible Commentary > 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.

...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 [greek]logoV[/greek] 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 [greek]logoV[/greek]. This demands that the [greek]logoV[/greek] '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 [greek]logoV[/greek]. 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 [greek]logoV[/greek] 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 [greek]qeoV[/greek]. So I have no qualms with the 'name' in vs12 being that of 'God' if that name is that of Jesus i.e. the [greek]monogenhV[/greek] '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 [greek]logoV[/greek] 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 [greek]logoV[/greek] 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 [greek]logoV[/greek] as denoting the 'Law of Moses' which the Israelites rejected. Am I correct in all of the above?

God bless

[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

[AVmetro]

08-19-2003 @ 06:07 PM post located here
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! ) but I see you've already posted it. I deleted what I moved. Thanks.

[Ron Macy]

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).
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe I understood your position. Thanks for the clarification, though.


You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
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.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

I believe logos refers to the plan of God.


You responded,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
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]

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]

IronMetro

You wrote,
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Sorry I'm late in replying to this. I moved the post (late! ) 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]

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]

Ron Macy:
You wrote,
The statement &quot;God's name is not Jesus&quot; 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]

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" [in John1 - "through"] 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 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 [greek]logoV[/greek] 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 [greek]logoV[/greek]? 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 [greek]logoV[/greek] 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 [greek]LogoV[/greek]. That eliminates that option. Earlier, the [greek]logoV[/greek] 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 [greek]logoV[/greek] is 'Jesus'. To that, I appeal to 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 which identify Christ as the [greek]logoV[/greek].

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 [greek]logoV[/greek] 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:

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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