Home Debates Trinity Debate Zechariah 12:10 Page 12

Trinity Debate Zechariah 12:10

Subject:  Zechariah 12:10 proves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: April 22 2007
Debaters:  Is 1: 18 & t8

 

Is 1:18

Okay short and sweet this time….

In the below passage Zechariah records a quite amazing prophecy:

Zechariah 12:10
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

What’s significant (in the context of this debate submission) about the highlighted statement above is that the preceding verses (1, 4, 6 and 9) unmistakably bear out that it was a prophecy made by YHWH, and would be fulfilled by YHWH. YHWH foretold that they (the inhabitants of Jerusalem) will look upon “Me” whom they (the inhabitants of Jerusalem) pierced.

Zechariah 12:1-9
1The burden of the word of the LORD [YHWH] concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD [YHWH] who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, 2″Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. 3″It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. 4″In that day,” declares the LORD [YHWH], “I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5″Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the LORD of hosts, their God.’ 6″In that day I [YHWH] will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. 7″The LORD also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. 8″In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them. 9″And in that day I [YHWH] will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

There is no mention of a secondary identity in the Zechariah’s predictive prophecy. The “me” in “they will look on Me whom they have pierced” is YHWH. In the immediately-preceding verse YHWH affirmed “I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem”, which of course only the Almighty could accomplish. With that in mind, please consider Who it was that John taught fulfilled this prophecy:

John 19:33-37
33but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. 36For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” 37And again another Scripture says, “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.

According to John, Zechariah 10:12 is a predictive reference to the piercing (vs 34) incurred by Yeshua during His crucifixion (“For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture” – v 36). Let me be as clear as I can here t8: Only YHWH could fulfill this prophecy, because it was made specifically by YHWH (through Zechariah) and of YHWH. It cannot be fulfilled by proxy, the piercing was to be incurred by YHWH and it is YHWH that would be looked upon. No one else, the language in the Zechariah text is unambiguous and does not allow for it. John unequivocally tells us that Yeshua literally fulfilled the Zech 12:10 prophecy at Calvary, but crucially He fulfilled it after His body had expired (v 33). The Roman soldiers and other bystanders (the inhabitants of Jerusalem) looked upon His lifeless body, but John and Zechariah tell us that this was the body of YHWH. So, the obvious implication here is: even His dead body was considered utterly divine, it was the body of YHWH. So any argument linking Yeshua’s deity with His indwelling by the Holy Spirit is vaporised in this verse.

If YHWH makes a prophecy that only YHWH can fulfill, and Yahshua fulfills it, then He is YHWH. There is no other acceptable conclusion.

Now some questions for you t8:

Q1) Was the “me” that was foretold to be pierced and looked upon by the inhabitant of Jerusalem in Zech 12:10 a refererence to YHWH? If not, please provide lexical evidence to the contrary.

Q2) According to John’s inspired-understanding, was Yeshua in fact the “me” in the Zech 12:10 prophecy (John 19:37)? If not, please explain.

Q3) If YHWH makes a prophecy that only YHWH can fulfill, and Yeshua fulfills it, is it reasonable to conclude that Yeshua is YHWH? If not why not?

Blessings


t8

Q1) Was the “me” that was foretold to be pierced and looked upon by the inhabitant of Jerusalem in Zech 12:10 a refererence to YHWH? If not, please provide lexical evidence to the contrary.

I think the ME is YHWH. The one who is to be pierced (HIM) is Yeshua.

It says “…They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child,…”

Grammatically, the “Me” and the “him” cannot refer to the same individual can it.

It is clearly talking about 2, not 1. Otherwise it would say: “They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for ME as one mourns for an only child,”. Of course it doesn’t say that, so the “him” is obviously different to the “me”.

Q2) According to John’s inspired-understanding, was Yeshua in fact the “me” in the Zech 12:10 prophecy (John 19:37)? If not, please explain.

Is Yeshua the ME or the HIM? I say he is the HIM. If Yeshua was both, then the language would use ME or HIM, but not both.

Q3) If YHWH makes a prophecy that only YHWH can fulfill, and Yeshua fulfills it, is it reasonable to conclude that Yeshua is YHWH? If not why not?

YHWH didn’t make this prophecy about himself from what I can see. We know that YHWH is not a man and he doesn’t have bones and blood. It is rediculous to believe that God whom the universe cannot contain squeezed himself into a human body. Rather, it was the Word that became flesh and the apostles beheld his glory as the son of God. Even if YHWH did make the prophecy about himself, we know that YHWH sent his son and it was YHWH’s will that his son drink the cup that was prepared for him. So if YHWH was in Christ, then to that degree was YHWH the one being punished. But Christ did say “My God My God, why hast thou forsaken me”.

But the way it appears to me on the outset is that they would look to YHWH, because of the HIM who was pierced.

NOTE: My rebuttal is based on the English version of these verses. It is possible that the English version may not be that clear or even accurate. If this is the case, then a more accurate version of the Zechariah verse could change what I have written.

Anyway, it is interesting to note that John 19:33-37 also refers to another prophecy i.e., NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.”
When we look at that prophecy, we see clearly that the YHWH (LORD) is one and the one whom not a bone shall be broken is another.

It is obvious to all that the bolded verses below are either or both Yeshua and YHWH. But the interesting part is that we cannot confuse Yeshua with actually being YHWH.

Psalm 22:1-19
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?

2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.

4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.

5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 “He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother’s breast.

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.

So we have 3 reasons why YHWH cannot be Yeshua in Zech 12:10.

  1. Me and Him cannot be the same individual grammatically speaking.
  2. Psalm 22:1-19 the other quoted scripture by John, clearly indentifies Yeshua and YHWH as different identities.
  3. There is no contradiction in truth.
 

So an explanation that fits with John, Zechariah, and David (or Psalm writer) is that YHWH and Yeshua are 2 different identities and because of him who was pierced (Yeshua), people would look to YHWH (his God). This has come to pass as many now look to YHWH because of Yeshua’s sacrifice. See the below verse as an immediate example of fulfillment.

Acts 2:36-39
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Discussion

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 221 through 240 (of 518 total)
123…111213…242526
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 2, 2007 at 2:50 pm#62845
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,07:51)
    Kejonn. Is that the best that you can do?

    Rev 1:1 does not identify who “God” is.

    Instead of getting irrational and abusive, you should try reasoning from the scripture. It just shows your character.

    There are three who are Jehovah God. Regardless of who “God” is in Rev 1:1,  The First and Last is Jesus Jehovah God. It is so obvious.


    You don't seem to quite understand though CB. It matters much who God is in Rev 1:1 because the Trinity doctrine (or modalism) falters in this very verse. Why?

    If God is three persons, which person of God gives Yeshua the Revelation? That is the question. But you see, if you believe Yeshua is God then you have to start implying rather than seeing what is plainly written. However, if one does not believe that Yeshua is God — and he is NEVER called God in Revelation like you see in John 20:28 — than the answer is evident. We who believe that the Father is YHWH of the OT, and the only God, have our answer because it is this: God=Father=YHWH.

    But the Trinity cannot do this. If we are to believe it, then “God” in Rev 1:1 can't be Yeshua because the Revelation is given to him by God. So it has to be either the Father or the Holy Spirit. So which “person” is it that gives the Revelation to Yeshua?

    In the end, Rev 1:1 says “God”. If God is all three persons, then there is a major conflict in verse 1 alone.

    If you can't give an answer just say so. Humility is a fine trait.

    Quote
    LOOK!

    Rev 1:17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

    This is obviously Jesus speaking. Jesus (Jehovah); The First and Last. Jesus is the one “that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”. No amount of “twist” can deny this fact.

    Isa 44:6  So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.


    You already listed these. These prove nothing towards your theology except what you want to believe. The contextual evidence denies your position.

    Quote
    Furthermore, Jesus is the Almighty God.

    Rev 1:8  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. :O


    Again, the contextual evidence says “no”. You use the KJV which “supports” your view. Most other translations have “kyrios theos” not just “kyrios”. But the context is given in the preceding verses if you care to even read them.

    Theology cannot be valid when it is formed from “soundbites” of scripture.

    August 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm#62846
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,08:02)
    Kejonn

    Quote
    Thanks for avoiding my questions especially the second one.

    Kejonn. Are you blind or something?

    Here is your question.

    Quote
    Here's another for you, and please answer it: Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

    And here was my answer.

    Quote
    What does the scripture say?

    Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.
    Joh 20:28  And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!         :O

    Obviously Jesus had a body of flesh. Can't you see it in these verses?

    Yet Thomas still said.

    Joh 20:28  And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!  :O

    Kejonn. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.


    I was looking for you to say yourself that Yeshua came in the flesh. I aksed the question because I sense in you much the same spirit as those of Westboro Baptist Church. I see them as someone who on the surface says they represent God but do so falsely as a means to turn people away from Christianity. Its a clever but effective form of subterfuge.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong. But you constantly ignore questions and leap beyond them. Then, you are a strong believer of “Jehovah Jesus God”. There is NOOOOOOOOOOOO scriptural evidence of this AT ALL. The Trinity says he is one of the three persons but your statements almost always lead to Jesus being the ONLY member of the Godhead.

    The Trinity at least has some scriptural grounds. Your theory of “Jehovah Jesus God” would make every serious Jew shake in his boots, even the ones who come to know Yeshua.

    August 2, 2007 at 9:34 pm#62864
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    CB;

    From your prior post you state that there are three that are Jehovah. Wow. The three of course you are referring to are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you believe that you are calling Christ a liar. Christ said he was the Son of God. The Father at his baptism said he was His Son. Christ then referred to the Holy Spirit as a third person. All three were stated to be distinct persons with the Father over all. You call yourself a cult buster. You state that we are serving another Jesus. I don't know whether to cry tears for you or take you seriously at all. You must indeed by jesting.

    August 3, 2007 at 12:41 am#62886
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 02 2007,23:51)

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,06:39)
    Kejonn. You've just swallowed a camel.


    A camel goes down easier than an elephant. But you can carve the tusks into toothpicks to get the elephant meat out of your teeth. Do you like the taste?

    Quote
    Rev 1:17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

    This is obviously Jesus speaking. Jesus (Jehovah); The First and Last. Jesus is the one “that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”. No amount of “twist” can deny this fact.


    All the twist in the world is necessary to support modalism. Your claim that Jesus is Jehovah means the the Father is some background character. Its a shame the NT writers even included the Father because you have ignored Him on every occasion.

    Hey CB, who is “God” in this verse?

    Rev 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

    Since Jesus is Jehovah (according to you), who is “God” in Rev 1:1? Some other being in heaven falsely using the title of “God”? Or did Jesus talk to himself to give himself his own Revelation? Hmmm, Jesus talks to himself. Your Jesus needs mental help it seems.

    Quote
    Isa 44:6  So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.


    YES! That's what we have been telling you all along, there is no other God besides YHWH (Jehovah). But you solve this by saying Jesus is God, to exclusion of the Father. I'm glad I don't have to stand next to you in a thunderstorm.

    Quote
    Furthermore, Jesus is the Almighty God.

    Rev 1:8  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. :O


    You are convinced already so showing the context would be a waste. Pearls before swine.


    kejonn

    Personally I think you are not being fair here.

    CB is not a modalist.

    He simply uses the word Jehovah which is an interpretation of the tetragammation YHWH.

    Most Trinitarians believe the name YHWH in Hebrew scriptures is not always applied to the Father but also to the Son and in many cases it is the Holy Ghost speaking as YHWH.

    CB simply has chosen to use the name Jehovah referring to God. Probably because of the insistance of most JWs (modern day Arians) of using the name Jehovah.

    Your accusations are uncalled for.

    In CBs defence he quotes mostly scriptures without saying much to add to them, I think that is plausible. You may not agree with him thats fine.

    But you should not accuse him of being something he is not.

    You say…

    Quote

    Rev 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
    Since Jesus is Jehovah (according to you), who is “God” in Rev 1:1? Some other being in heaven falsely using the title of “God”? Or did Jesus talk to himself to give himself his own Revelation? Hmmm, Jesus talks to himself. Your Jesus needs mental help it seems.

    You are again speaking to a Modalist, not a Trinitarian.

    Maybe you could tell us “When” God gave it to him?

    Its not in the verse is it?

    At some point Jesus the man was given back all things which he had shared with the Father, which would include the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which by the way is his.

    Notice it says “The Revelation” of Jesus Christ.

    The greek for “Revelation” is 'apokalupsis' which means…

    1) laying bare, making naked

    2) a disclosure of truth, instruction

    a) concerning things before unknown

    b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all

    3) manifestation, appearance

    So it could be read the disclosure of truth that God gave to him.

    As you know Trinitarians believe that Jesus left his place with the Father taking on the likeness of sinfull flesh while not diminishing his nature as the Word/God. He emptied himself of his priviledges, power, authority, even his knowledge since he had to be born and be a baby like us. This is the miracle of incarnation, not re-incarnation which would imply he is no longer the Word/God or that he died and was reborn. He humbled himself to come and do the Fathers will in the flesh. Paul says let this same mind be in us, Emptying ourselves to totally do our Fathers will, though because of Jesus we didnt have to lose our knowledge and return as a baby to be born again.

    At some point in the life and ministry Jesus was given back all authority, and power, wisdom, knowledge, glory etc.  that he had left.

    When? We dont know. Do we. But we do have an Idea and it was before John recieved the revelation.

    Jn 3:35
    The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

    Jn 16:15
    All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

    Jn 13:3
    Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

    BTW Jn 13:3 should demolish the “Unitarians” anti preexistance theory out the window.

    Anyway, we see that Jesus was given all things. All things means all things including Power, authority, Glory, wisdom, knowledge, strength, blessings etc. etc.

    Since we know that Jesus is the “Truth”, and since all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are now in him, Col 2:3, and since know all Authority and Power is Jesus, Heb. 1:3, Matt 28:18, then we can say that somewhere in between his life and ministry and his assension Jesus recieved all things.

    Rev 1:1
    The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

    Now kejonn unless you can show me when Jesus got the revelation, which by the way is his, then yo
    ur hole in the Trinitarian theory of Rev 1:1 is fallacious.

    You said…

    Quote

    Since Jesus is Jehovah (according to you), who is “God” in Rev 1:1? Some other being in heaven falsely using the title of “God”? Or did Jesus talk to himself to give himself his own Revelation? Hmmm, Jesus talks to himself. Your Jesus needs mental help it seems.

    Jn
    [1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    [2] The same was in the beginning with God.

    Was there another person in heaven who was God?

    Did not this same John record Jn 1:1,2

    God who is God with God! So John must have been looney also.

    Did not God comunicate with God when he said.. Let us make man…surely angels didnt lay the foundations of the world.

    Did not the Word God speak with The Father God when he said..

    Heb 10:7
    Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

    Notice it says in the volume of the book it is written of me.

    Well we dont know what book the scripture is referring to but it is interesting to note that the Book is about Yeshua, and yet the OT scriptures are about “YHWH”. The bible is a biography of God yet Jesus takes claim to it. John 5:39.

    Now if you can also show us when and how this Word God ceased to be God, which is against nature itself since no creature has ever ceased to be that creature and become another creature and yet remain as the same creature. Boy that will make your head spin. Basically it would be reincarnation. The Word was not reincarnated, nor did the Word cease to be the Word.

    We know that Jesus Preexisted his natural birth, but if we say that he is no longer the Word/God then he is not the the personal Jesus that preexisted is he?

    :)

    August 3, 2007 at 3:21 am#62896
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Quote

    Quote
    Here's another for you, and please answer it: Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

    And here was my answer.

    Quote
    What does the scripture say?

    Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.
    Joh 20:28  And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!         :O

    Obviously Jesus had a body of flesh. Can't you see it in these verses?

    Yet Thomas still said.

    Joh 20:28  And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!  :O

    Kejonn. Do not be unbelieving, but believing

    Kejonn.
    I answered your question with scripture using John 20:27 and you got uptight.

    Look again at John 20:27

    Joh 20:27  Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.

    It seems very clear from this verse that Jesus had a fleshly body. Did you want me to add further to it?

    Perhaps what upset you was the following verse John 20:28.

    Joh 20:28  And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!  :O

    August 3, 2007 at 3:37 am#62897
    kejonn
    Participant

    Hey WJ,

    Check out my various posts about Philo and “ho theos”. Philo of Alexandria developed the Logos theory in relation to God. Either the writer of John's Gospel was influenced by Philo or God both inspired them to use the Logos in relation to an entity that existed with God since the beginning. In any case, Philo's work on Logos preceded John's Gospel and Epistles by at least 50-60 years. I will repost Philo's writings on “ho theos” and “theos” without the article.

    From ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT, 1.229-230

    (1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

    Here “ancient word” is the Word that John writes about. If you doubt this, I think it would behoove you to check out Philo's works. Very interesting.

    Also remember this: Philo is writing years before any NT writer. He would know the Greek usage of his day more than any modern day scholar. He would also know more about how “theos” and “ho theos” were being used in his day.

    Read my thread about Philo. I think you'll be in for some big surprises.

    As to your explanation of Rev 1:1, nice try. It almost sounds good. But it rings hollow. I find that Trinitarians often fall back to the position of silence. That is, if it is not written, you can imply the meaning. Why not work with what is written then?

    You say “when”. Its quite obvious “when” – after the ascension. Read verse 1 again.

    Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John

    Let me ask you WJ, did Yeshua have an angel to command while he was on earth? No. Yeshua speaks of commanding angels in the Gospels, but he is speaking of the future, not while he was with the apostles. The closest he comes while on earth is this:

    Mat 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

    See, Yeshua says he would have to appeal to His Father to have angels at his command. The angels would come from the Father.

    But in Rev 1:1, there is no talk of appealing to his Father in order to send an angel to deliver the Revelation to John. So Yeshua was in heaven and power and authority had been given to him to command angels.

    1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
    1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

    Now combine this with what Philo has pointed out about “theos” without the article in John 1:1 and you now are back to trying to figure out who exactly God is in Revelation 1:1 if you say Yeshua is God.

    August 3, 2007 at 3:39 am#62898
    kejonn
    Participant

    CB,

    Why are you posting again about this? I acknowledged that you answered the question already :;):.

    August 3, 2007 at 3:48 am#62899
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Kejonn. You are still stuck on the following regardles of who you believe is identified as “God” in Rev 1:1. It bears no relevance to and changes nothing of the following.

    Rev 1:17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

    This is obviously Jesus speaking. Jesus (Jehovah); The First and Last. Jesus is the one “that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”. No amount of “twist” can change this fact.

    Kejonn. Do you believe that The Father was dead and now alive?   The above can refer only to Jesus.

    Isa 44:6  So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

    Look also at how Jesus is portrayed in the broader context.

    Rev 1:10  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
    Rev 1:11  Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last    : and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
    Rev 1:12  And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
    Rev 1:13  And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man,     clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
    Rev 1:14  His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
    Rev 1:15  And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
    Rev 1:16  And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
    Rev 1:17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
    Rev 1:18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
     

    He doesn't resemble anything like your little masonic jesus.

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%2….m

    2Co 11:4  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
     :O

    August 3, 2007 at 5:22 am#62926
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (Cult Buster @ Aug. 02 2007,22:48)
    Kejonn. You are still stuck on the following regardles of who you believe is identified as “God” in Rev 1:1. It bears no relevance to and changes nothing of the following.


    Nope, I'm not stuck because I know who God really is. The Trinity gets stuck on verse 1 because God tells Jesus yet Jesus is supposed to be God, right? Yet, if you follow what the Bible says, the Father, the true God (John 17:3. 1 Thess 1:9), the one God (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6), is the only God (John 5:44) who could tell Jesus of the Revelation.

    Speaking of “God confusion”, how do you reconcile this verse?

    1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

    Let's see, one God. And there is a mediator between God and men, and it is the man Christ Jesus. But the Trinity would rewrite this verse to read something like this

    1Ti 2:5 For there is one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and one mediator also between God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and men, the man Christ Jesus.

    So is the Son a God while Christ Jesus is a man? And why would Jesus, who is supposed to be God need a mediator between himself and men if he is that mediator? Why the bother?

    Yet it becomes so simple again if we see that the man Christ Jesus mediates between men and the Father, the true God (John 17:3. 1 Thess 1:9), the one God (1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6), is the only God (John 5:44).

    Quote
    Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

    This is obviously Jesus speaking. Jesus (Jehovah); The First and Last. Jesus is the one “that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”. No amount of “twist” can change this fact.


    No twisting needed. These two verses do not prove that Yeshua is God. They prove he is Yeshua.

    Quote
    Kejonn. Do you believe that The Father was dead and now alive? The above can refer only to Jesus.


    No and I've never ever said that these verse apply to God. But how can the immortal God die and live again? A man can though. Even if that man is the Son of God.

    Quote
    Isa 44:6 So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

    Look also at how Jesus is portrayed in the broader context.


    Is first and last a title? Besides that there is a difference here.

    YHWH: “I am the first and I am the last”
    Yeshua : “I am the first and the last”

    Notice that there is only one “I am” for Yeshua while YHWH uses two. You may not think this is an issue but it shows the difference. Plus, the quote from Isaiah ends with something the revelation ones do not “And there is no God besides Me”.

    Plonk.

    Quote
    Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
    Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last    : and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
    Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
    Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man,     clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
    Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
    Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
    Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
    Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
    Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

    He doesn't resemble anything like your little masonic jesus.

    Hehe, you wish. You just think that everyone who denies the Trinity belongs to a cult. I don't belong to any cult. I used to belong to a Baptist Church, now I do not. I use the Bible as my doctrine. The one that was originally penned prior to 100 BCE. You believe in another that came along later called the Nicene Creed. Long after Paul and the Gospel writers were dead and Yeshua was sitting at the right hand of God.

    August 3, 2007 at 5:33 am#62929
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 03 2007,15:37)
    Hey WJ,

    Check out my various posts about Philo and “ho theos”. Philo of Alexandria developed the Logos theory in relation to God. Either the writer of John's Gospel was influenced by Philo or God both inspired them to use the Logos in relation to an entity that existed with God since the beginning. In any case, Philo's work on Logos preceded John's Gospel and Epistles by at least 50-60 years. I will repost Philo's writings on “ho theos” and “theos” without the article.

    From ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT, 1.229-230

    (1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

    Here “ancient word” is the Word that John writes about. If you doubt this, I think it would behoove you to check out Philo's works. Very interesting.

    Also remember this: Philo is writing years before any NT writer. He would know the Greek usage of his day more than any modern day scholar. He would also know more about how “theos” and “ho theos” were being used in his day.

    Read my thread about Philo. I think you'll be in for some big surprises.

    As to your explanation of Rev 1:1, nice try. It almost sounds good. But it rings hollow. I find that Trinitarians often fall back to the position of silence. That is, if it is not written, you can imply the meaning. Why not work with what is written then?

    You say “when”. Its quite obvious “when” – after the ascension. Read verse 1 again.

    Rev 1:1   The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John

    Let me ask you WJ, did Yeshua have an angel to command while he was on earth? No. Yeshua speaks of commanding angels in the Gospels, but he is speaking of the future, not while he was with the apostles. The closest he comes while on earth is this:

    Mat 26:53  “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

    See, Yeshua says he would have to appeal to His Father to have angels at his command. The angels would come from the Father.

    But in Rev 1:1, there is no talk of appealing to his Father in order to send an angel to deliver the Revelation to John. So Yeshua was in heaven and power and authority had been given to him to command angels.

    1Pe 3:21   Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
    1Pe 3:22  who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

    Now combine this with what Philo has pointed out about “theos” without the article in John 1:1 and you now are back to trying to figure out who exactly God is in Revelation 1:1 if you say Yeshua is God.


    kejonn

    That still does not tell us when Jesus recieved the Revelation.

    There are many things Jesus knows that he is yet to reveal.

    All things were given to him before his ascension.

    And your argument about “ho theos” is a fallacious argument also.

    The absence of the article for Jn 1:1c is to simply distinguish between the Father and the Son. John did not want to introduce Modalism.

    Its a fallacious argument to say the lack of “ho” Proceeding “Theos” means that “Theos” is not God.

    For many instances in the NT show that “Theos” was used without the “ho” in refering to the Father.

    If lack of the definite article demands this:

    “and the word was a god” (NWT)
    Then consistency demands the NWT read this way in all these verses that also lack the definite article:

    the Word was a god 1:1

    a representative of a god 1:6

    to become a god's children 1:12

    man's will, but from a god 1:13

    No man has seen a god 1:8a

    the only begotten a god 1:8b

    'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning' 1:1,2

    'a life' rather than 'life' 1:4

    'a John' rather than 'John' 1:6

    http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm

    I know this is a cornerstone verse and thank God that John came along later with his writtings to set the record straight.

    Yeshua is God.

    You seem to agree with the JWs alot.

    Jesus is “a god”, the Holy Spirit is an it.

    What gives?

    So now kejonn do you also believe the writtings of Philo are inspired above Johns. I believe the Gospel of John was written after Revelations and John borrowed the term from the vision of Yeshua having the name “the Word of God”.

    :)

    August 3, 2007 at 5:55 am#62938
    kejonn
    Participant

    Hey, gotta go to bed, and I will reply again soon, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say “Happy Birthday”!

    Have a great one!

    August 3, 2007 at 6:41 pm#62978
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 03 2007,17:55)
    Hey, gotta go to bed, and I will reply again soon, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say “Happy Birthday”!

    Have a great one!


    kejonn

    Thanks!

    Blessings! :)

    August 3, 2007 at 7:37 pm#62982
    Mr. Steve
    Participant

    CB;

    Christ says in Revelation that he was the first and the last. Does that mean he existed before the Father? He said he was he that liveth and was dead. The bible says God raised Christ from the dead, he did not raise himself from the dead. So if Christ is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as he told Moses and the Children of Israel, then how could he die? You're teaching that Christ is Jehovah is false doctrine. The Father said that Christ was his Son. Why don't you declare that? God told Abraham that he was the Most High God. God told Moses that he was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So really what you are trying to say is that Christ was the Most High God, too. If that is the case, you are calling Christ a liar. You do greatly error not knowing the scriptures.

    August 3, 2007 at 10:07 pm#63002
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Hi Mr Steve.

    Good post.

    Some say that Jesus is 100% God, and therefore if he died, then 100% God died. If he is 33% God, then a third of the members died, but they explicitly teach that Jesus is 100% God.

    There are mysteries and there is foolishness.

    The Trinity doctrine pretends to be a mystery, but it is truly foolishness because it comes from the mind of man and God's foolishness is much greater.

    August 5, 2007 at 10:24 am#63219
    Cult Buster
    Participant

    Mr Steve

    Quote
    CB;

    Christ says in Revelation that he was the first and the last.

    Well it seems that you finally grasped this truth.

    Isa 44:6  So says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and His redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God.

    Christ is Jehovah God not your “another Jesus”.

    2Co 11:4  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. :O

    August 5, 2007 at 10:27 am#63220
    kejonn
    Participant

    CB,

    Did God sya “first and last” was a title, and His alone? And YHWH said “I am the first and I am the last”. If this is a title, Yeshua only said “I am the first and the last”. No second instance of “I am”.

    August 6, 2007 at 6:40 am#63276
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 05 2007,22:27)
    CB,

    Did God sya “first and last” was a title, and His alone? And YHWH said “I am the first and I am the last”. If this is a title, Yeshua only said “I am the first and the last”. No second instance of “I am”.


    kejonn

    Weak!  :p

    I will be responding to your post on the Monotheist thread as time permits.

    I have looked at Philo and will respond. Are you sure you want to go down the path of a greek Philosopher and put your trust in his words rather than the Interpretation of more than 600 Scholars who translated our present day english versions?

    Also, not to mention the translation of the Septuegent, which flatly denies the implications of your Greek philosopher.

    Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.

    He believed the “logos” to be the expressed thought or word of God, therefore implying Jesus is the thought or plan of God that came into existance at his birth. Hence becoming the firstborn of God. He also calls the “logos” a god. Hello JWs.

    I find it rather amazing that you would rather believer one like Philo rather than our current interpretations and the early Fathers of the faith.

    Also as you should already know, the question of John gettting his concept of the “Logos” from Philo or vica versa is unknown.

    :p

    August 6, 2007 at 8:21 am#63286
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,01:40)

    Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 05 2007,22:27)
    CB,

    Did God sya “first and last” was a title, and His alone? And YHWH said “I am the first and I am the last”. If this is a title, Yeshua only said “I am the first and the last”. No second instance of “I am”.


    kejonn

    Weak! :p

    I will be responding to your post on the Monotheist thread as time permits.

    I have looked at Philo and will respond. Are you sure you want to go down the path of a greek Philosopher and put your trust in his words rather than the Interpretation of more than 600 Scholars who translated our present day english versions?


    Are you sure you want to take the word of 600 modern Greek scholars who did not write in the Greek that Philo did? Since Philo wrote in the same Greek that the NT writers did, it would seem he would have a huge edge over scholars who are trying to translate language that was written 1600-2000 years ago. Just look how much people today struggle with the English of the 1600-1700s!

    Quote
    Also, not to mention the translation of the Septuegent, which flatly denies the implications of your Greek philosopher.

    Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.


    Yes. Can you prove that the logos of John 1:1 was anything different than what Philo philosophized?

    Quote
    He believed the “logos” to be the expressed thought or word of God, therefore implying Jesus is the thought or plan of God that came into existance at his birth. Hence becoming the firstborn of God. He also calls the “logos” a god. Hello JWs.


    You may say “hello JWs” but you'd be off there, would you not? Do they not believe that Yeshua was the archangel Michael? So you're thinking more along the lines of Christadelphians and Biblical Unitarians.

    Beyond that, what proof do you have that “logos” was a separate being? I'd be interested in your response.

    Quote
    I find it rather amazing that you would rather believer one like Philo rather than our current interpretations and the early Fathers of the faith.


    Which fathers are you speaking of? The ones who started a nasty thing called the Roman Catholic Church? The same church that deified Mary? The same that says we must confess sins to other men rather than through our mediator, Christ, thereby putting back up the temple veil that was torn in two?

    In a word, yes, over these fathers I'd take his word.

    Quote
    Also as you should already know, the question of John gettting his concept of the “Logos” from Philo or vica versa is unknown.

    :p


    Yes, but can you show me the difference beyond one sticking point: “the Word became flesh”. Philo did not know Yeshua, but he spoke much of the logos of God. John's logos is uncannily similar to Philo's logos. Philo's logos would fit in all other aspects. In fact, you can read that the logos spoke through prophets. That would fit John 1:10-11. Many of the Israelites ignored the words of the prophets. And amazingly enough, Israelites did not know of logos in the same sense that Philo used; that is, as the instrument of creation. Matches this

    Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

    So how again does John's logos differ from the logos proposed by Philo?

    August 6, 2007 at 8:36 am#63288
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,01:40)
    Also, not to mention the translation of the Septuegent, which flatly denies the implications of your Greek philosopher.

    Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.

    He believed the “logos” to be the expressed thought or word of God, therefore implying Jesus is the thought or plan of God that came into existance at his birth. Hence becoming the firstborn of God. He also calls the “logos” a god. Hello JWs.


    From http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/logos.htm

    logos Greek noun unsually translated 'word' but also 'reason' or 'meaning' and familiar in Greek philosophy from Heraclitus (6th cent. BCE) to the Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria (1st cent. CE) for the principle of coherence undergirding the universe. In the LXX [the Greek Old Testament, Septuagint] logos translates the Hebrew dabar, the creative 'word' of God, which is parallel to sophia (wisdom) as a mediator who acted for God in relation to his creation (Wisd. 9:1-2). In the gospel of John (1:14) and the Revelation (19:13) Jesus is called the Word of God. This is an important development for Christology: it is an assertion that the Word who was God's agent in creation was to be identified with the human figure of Jesus of Nazareth (john 1:46).

    And you were saying?

    Oh, and from the same page

    Harper’s Bible Dictionary

    edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985)

    logos, the Greek term usually translated ‘word’ (especially word of God) when it occurs in the nt. Logos has a wide range of meaning, e.g., reckoning or accounting, explanation or reason, statement or discourse. In English, it frequently appears in the names of scientific or other disciplines, e.g., biology, psychology, theology.

    Originally employed as a technical philosophical term by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (sixth century b.c.), logos became a particularly important concept for the Stoics (third century b.c. and later). In Stoicism, logos was the principle and pattern that gave the world or cosmos its character and coherence. The term was taken over by Philo, the Alexandrian philosophical theologian of Judaism, who was roughly a contemporary of the apostle Paul. By means of the logos, Philo sought to reconcile Greek philosophical theories about the universe (cosmology) with the biblical accounts of God’s creating the world by his spoken word. God’s logos became a clearly identifiable entity, mediating between God and the world, the mode of the divine creativity and revelation. [kejonn's note: this is Philo's belief, how does it match up with John's?]

    Already before Philo, logos had been used in the Greek translation of the ot (Septuagint or lxx) to render the Hebrew term (dabar) usually translated into English as ‘word’—a term frequently used of God’s speaking. Just the use of this Greek term, with its rich associations, to translate the equally pregnant Hebrew word (which could mean ‘word,’ ‘thing,’ or ‘event’) was a significant development in the growth of the biblical tradition. At the same time, in the later ot and apocryphal books, ‘wisdom’ (Gk. sophia) was beginning to play a mediatorial role between God and creation not unlike that of logos in Philo (cf. Prov. 8:22-31; Wisd. of Sol. 9:1-2). The idea that God’s relation to his creation was mediated through a subordinate being or mode of manifestation was thus developing in a variety of ways.

    In the nt, Jesus is described as preaching the word (Mark 2:2) or word of God (Luke 5:1). In both cases, logos is used, as it most often is in the nt where the English has ‘word.’ The gospel message about Jesus can also be described as the word or word of God (Acts 4:31; 8:4; 1 Cor. 14:36).

    Not surprisingly, in the Johannine literature, Jesus himself is called logos (John 1:14: ‘the Word became flesh’). In Rev. 19:13, Jesus is called ‘Word of God’ (logos of God). Elsewhere, in the prologue of 1 John, he is referred to as ‘the word of life’ (1:1).

    Particularly significant is the role in creation assigned to the logos, who is incarnate in Jesus (John 1:14) in the prologue of the Fourth Gospel. It is not immediately obvious why a man sent from God, even the Messiah of Israel, should have played such a role. Yet Jesus Christ figures as the mediator in creation not only in John, but also in such nt books as 1 Corinthians (8:6), Colossians (1:15-17), and Hebrews (1:2), although the term logos is not used. (Interestingly enough, in 1 Cor. 1:24, Paul calls Christ ‘the wisdom of God,’ using the Greek term sophia, mentioned above, that has close connections with logos.) This development in the doctrine of Christ becomes immediately intelligible in light of the use of logos as God’s creating and revealing mediator in Philo and the role played by ‘wisdom’ in ancient Jewish wisdom literature. Yet an unprecedented step is taken by nt writers, especially the Fourth Evangelist, when it is claimed that the one who has played this role can be identified with a historic figure, Jesus of Nazareth.

    Quite.

    August 6, 2007 at 12:32 pm#63303
    kejonn
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,01:40)

    Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.

    He believed the “logos” to be the expressed thought or word of God, therefore implying Jesus is the thought or plan of God that came into existance at his birth. Hence becoming the firstborn of God. He also calls the “logos” a god. Hello JWs.

    This time directly from one of Philo's writings ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT

    (1.215) For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son. The other is the rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man, the copy of whom, perceptible to the senses, is he who performs his paternal vows and sacrifices, to whom it is enjoined to put on the aforesaid tunic, the representation of the universal heaven, in order that the world may join with the man in offering sacrifice, and that the man may likewise co-operate with the universe.

    Quote
    Also as you should already know, the question of John gettting his concept of the “Logos” from Philo or vica versa is unknown.


    Vice-versa would not be possible. Philo died 40 years before the Gospel of John was written. These leaves only 2 possibilities: (1)the writer of GoJ was influencd by Philo and his contemporaries and/or (2) the writer of GoJ was similarly inspired by God to apply logos to Yeshua.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 221 through 240 (of 518 total)
123…111213…242526
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
POPULAR TOPICS
ACTIVE TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2024 Heaven Net

Navigation

© 1999 - 2023 - Heaven Net
 Log in with Facebook
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

 Log in with Facebook
or

Create Account