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

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?

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

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

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).

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 λογος 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 λογος? 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 λογος 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 Λογος. That eliminates that option. Earlier, the λογος 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 λογος is 'Jesus'. To that, I appeal to 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13 which identify Christ as the λογος.

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 λογος 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted text here....

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

God bless

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

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

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

IronMetro

[quote ][/quote ] tags

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

Thanks,
Ron