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
λογος 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
λογος. This demands that the
λογος '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 λογος.
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
λογος 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
θεος. So I have no qualms with the 'name' in vs12 being that of 'God' if that name is that of Jesus i.e. the
μονογενης '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
λογος 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
λογος 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
λογος as denoting the 'Law of Moses' which the Israelites rejected. Am I correct in all of the above?
God bless
TheologyWeb Campus
» World Religions Dept.
» Unorthodox Theology 201
»
Did Jesus Christ preexist His birth in Bethlehem?
). I'll get back with you this weekend. Thanks :cwink:.
) but I see you've already posted it. I deleted what I moved. Thanks.
