Co equal

[malcolm ferris]

Quote (Cubes @ June 04 2006,01:25)

Quote (malcolm ferris @ June 03 2006,19:44) 3. Was He a lower class of being than His Father? Is a son of a human a lower class of being than his father? Or is he simply in a lesser status as a child and through until maturity. Also – does the father pre-date the father? Any son of any being is the same life as his father, yet is in a condition bodily (at least as far as earthly physical creatures are concerned) that is weaker than his parent and dependant until maturity, upon his parent for protection, nurture etc. Also the son holds a status commensurate to this bodily condition. (Gal 4:1-3) Hi Malcolm: I felt to comment on this portion, to add I hope and not to detract to what you are saying, though feel free to correct me or clarify if I've gotten you wrong. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father… we know that in his particular case, he was concieved of the holy spirit so that would make God his literal Father. On the other hand, we are also born again of this very same spirit of the Father and time does not permit me to post a few scriptures to that end right now but I hope to in the coming days. My point here is that: Christ has the preemminence in all things but we that are in him are all born of the SAME Spirit of God genetically, thus he DOES NOT have a likeness to God which we CANNOT also partake of when born again, except that he has preemminence in all things and is the firstfruits. Does that make sense? When I say “except that…” I am aware that I can't grasp the greatness and awesomeness of that state fully but I do know that it is such that all creatures in the universe would bow to him and acknowledge him as Lord and that is no small exception!. Essentially, however, we are his brethren because we have the SAME Father and so the SAME genetics of the Spirit birth and parentage by God's grace!

Yup I agree with those statements

I see also in the fact that Jesus is the first begotten as well as uniquely begotten son – he is the firstborn son therefore is the primary heir, as such having a greater part of inheritance (preeminance) compared to the rest of us.

[NickHassan]

Hi ,
Hebrews 12.22f
“But you have come to Mount Zion
and to the city of the Living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to myriads of angels,
to the general assembly and the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven,
and to God, the judge of all,
and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,
and to the sprinkled blood,
which speaks better than the blood of Abel

See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking.
For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth,
much less will we escape who turn away from Him who speaks from heaven”

This is the invitation from God in heaven. He has spoken through the prophets and now through His Son and through the apostles.

“Listen to Him”.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ June 03 2006,12:15)

No offense Is 1:18, But you always seem to be chiming in after someone teaches truth by making an opposite comment often of an antagonistic nature. You remind me of the kid in every school that stand's and delivers a verbal barrage whenever someone has something good to say. What Woutlaw is doing is called encouragement. That is an absolute valid thing to do and we all need it from time to time when confronted by ignoramuses. Are we to abandon truth, scripture, and logic to follow you? Or shall we allow the Spirit and scripture to guide us. If we choose the second option, then encouraging such people is what we should be doing. Why? Because every truth spoken by men is a victory against evil and the Kingdom of Darkness. Blessings.

Thanks for the positive feedback t8.

Blessings.

PS; “ignoramuses[/i]“? – you're getting more and more imaginative with your insults to me…(Eph 4:29)

[NickHassan]

Hi,
“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him”

Equality given is not equality that has always been.

[Is 1:18]

Quote

Hi Is1:18 Before I look at 8 burning questions you pose – and JMTCW about them.

Always enjoy reading your perspective Malcolm, even if I don't always agree with it. I will have to be to the point as I’m recovering from a nasty stomach bug (I’ll spare you the gastro-intestinal details), and am not currenly running an all 4 cyllinders. Maybe that explains why I lost my patience with Wautlaw….

I have a question of my own for you or anyone out there

Quote

us in his earthly life ever called God before he began his ministry after John baptized him on the river Jordan?

A few of verses come to mind, there are others…

– In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1)

– Isaiah saw whose glory, and spoke of whom? (John 12:41)

– Who laid the foundations of the World? (Heb 1:10)

Quote

1. Did Yahshua pre-exist His incarnation? Yes

Agreed.

Quote

2. Was He involved in creation of 'all things'. If so, in what (general) capacity? God made all things BY him, even as God redeemed all things BY him.

Can you elaborate please? Was the Logos merely a puppet, a conduit for the Father's creative power? That is not what I understand from Heb 1:10. This verse bears out that in the exact same sense that YHWH created all things, the Word did…

Quote

3. Was He a lower class of being than His Father? Is a son of a human a lower class of being than his father? Or is he simply in a lesser status as a child and through until maturity. Also – does the father pre-date the father?

Okay. So you agree that the Son was of the exact same nature/substance as His Father, and they are therefore ontologically the same? After all I have seen you write ‘kind begets like kind…’. We agree on this. Where we differ is the origin of the Word. You say He had a beginning as every son does. I can’t accept that for two reasons:

1. I find NO biblical evidence of a pre-incarnation begettal. There simply isn’t any. Yahshua never alludes to it; neither do any of the OT or NT writers.

2. I find compelling evidence attesting to eternality – Micah 5:2, John 1:1, John 8:58, Heb 7:3….
   
(and of course there is the quantum physics implications of existing in the time-less environ of “the beginning”, but we've already discussed that issue in detail, and I think you know my thoughts well)

Quote

Any son of any being is the same life as his father, yet is in a condition bodily (at least as far as earthly physical creatures are concerned) that is weaker than his parent and dependant until maturity, upon his parent for protection, nurture etc. Also the son holds a status commensurate to this bodily condition. (Gal 4:1-3)

I disagree here as well. I think Phil 2:5-7 shows that while he had equality (positional, as ontological would be a foregone conclusion), He chose to relinquish it (whatever that entails)to take on the form of a bondservant. So, although there were overt limitations evident in his human life, I see no evidence of this applying pre-incarnation, or post ascention – for that matter. Yes, he remains a man – but one that can uphold the entire created order by the word of his power!! (Heb 1:3)

Quote

4. If the answer to the last question was yes – what kind of being was He? Answer was no so disregarding it.

So given your answer was ‘no, He wasn’t of a lower class of being’ and you reject the binatarian/trinitarian concept of plurality within unity, how is it that you don’t believe in TWO Gods? Even if you have a primary and secondary God, its still polytheism to believe in more than one God. And especially so if you honour  (John 5:23) and serve (Gr. latreuo¯) Him (Daniel 7:13, Rev 22:3, cf. Matt. 4:10), as you honour and serve the Father, as the Bible commands us to. That’s one of the MAJOR issue I have with your (and other’s) position on Christ. The polytheistic implications are overwhelmingly apparent to me. And I think this position is scriptually untenable in light of these scriptures: Deu 4:35, 39, 6:4-5; 32:39, 2Sa 22:32, Isa 37:20; Joh 5:44; Rom 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cr 8:4-6; 1 Ti 1:17, 2:5; Jud 1:25; Isa 43:10-11, Isa 45:5-22, Gal 3:20, Eph 4:4-6, James 2:19….[the list is long]I think the JW recognise this, and that's why they teach He is a created being. The christodelphians (and others) understand it as well, that's why they deny pre-existence althogether.

Quote

5. When was He begotten (before or after incarnation)? Before – he could not have had a glory with his Father before the foundation of the world if he had not been begotten. (Jn 17:5)

I don’t see how sharing glory with the Father before the foundation of the world necessitates a begettal. He would also share this glory had He always existed as well. Right?

Quote

6. What does it mean to you that the Father is 'greater'? Simply that He alone has a will and purpose for all of His family and for creation which He made for them to enjoy with Him.

Actually, since we both agree that any disparity in “greatness” between the Father and Son is one of position/authority/rank and not ontology, I don’t think this question was appropriate for you, we agree on this, it seems.

Quote

7. Is Yahshua called 'God' in the Bible. Even prophets are called 'Messiah' and gods – on the basis that in the shadow of the old testament they were a pre-figure of the relationship of Father and Son that was to be revealed in the new testament in Jesus Christ. (Heb 1:1-3)

I don’t recall any verse in the Bible where men or angels were called “YHWH” or “Theos” and the context implied divinity, that’s the key difference here. When Yahshua is called God, deity is strongly implied. Afterall, how many Gods were there “in the beginning”?

Quote

8. What do you understand “fullness of deity” (Col 2:9) to mean? Jesus explains it thus: JOHN 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Lets define our terms Malcolm, so we’re both on the same page:

Here is what I think Colossians 2:9 means:

Colossian 2:9 records “For in Him all the fullness of Deity (Gr. Theotes) dwells in bodily form.” (NASB). “Dwells” is the translation from the Greek word “katoikeo”, meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling.” “Fullness” is from the Greek word “pleroma” indicating that which “is filled up.” Theotes is used in this verse as an abstract noun for ‘theos’. It does not designate that Jesus was filled with the Father Himself. Paul would have used the noun ’theos’ if he wanted to convey this (note that Jesus is also said to be IN the Father in John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21). Nor can you translate “theotes” to mean a simple quality or attribute, it goes well beyond this, and instead refers to ‘divine essence’ or simply put the essence of what makes God….well…God!

Thayer’s lexicon defines theotes as the “state of being God”. Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1149147421-6953.html

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words records this:
“…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties. Source: http://www.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=divinity

Okay, so considering the all the Greek in this verse, Paul affirmed that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Jesus' body. This is an exceptionally emphatic statement of deity, and IMHO this kind of language is only applicable to YHWH.

That’s JMTCW Malcolm. If you have a different take on Col 2:9, I’m happy to consider it.

Quote

Even as when God spoke in (and therefore through) His servants the prophets – it was called the Voice of God – they heard the Word of God. They knew the God whom you could not otherwise know, saw him in His declared will and purpose.

When prophets spoke on God’s behalf they always made that clear (e.g. ‘Thus saith the Lord….”). Jesus was different in that respect, “He taught as One who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law” (Matthew 7:29). Its important to undersand that their teachers of the law were afforded the highest respect, so the contrast is telling. He said things like  “Moses wrote….But I say unto you” – and in doing so Yahshua demonstrated a marked difference between someone that delivers a message by proxy (e.g the prophets) and one who naturally assumes a divine prerogative.

SIYCFOTA

Blessings
Is 1:18

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Cubes @ June 04 2006,02:54)

Hi Is:

Hi Cubes, good to hear from you.

Quote

A couple more scriptures that came to mind…  : 1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. Col 2:9  For IN HIM DWELLS ALL THE FULLNESS of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, WHO IS THE HEAD of all principality and power. The previous verses which I quoted prior also tell us that God dwells in US.  The Fullness of God dwells in Christ who is the head of us…

Actually, I have to disagree here. We are told that “theos” indwells us. Never in scripture are we said to have “Theotes” indwell us, let alone the fullness of it permanently settling in our body. Its an important, and telling, distinction that Paul makes. As to his humanity, He is exactly like us. But, as to his diety (theotes) Yahshua is nothing like us at all. The writer of Hebrews wrote expressively of this and clearly delineated our respective 'glories' in Heb 3:1-6. We are His house, He is our builder.

Quote

Thus as Christ is to the Father genetically, so are we that have eternal life from the Father THROUGH him.

Hmmm…does God have chromosomes?
I'm not sure  understand exactly what you're conveying here, but if scripture says we will be like him I don't think that means in all respects.

Quote

Oh and you asked: “What kind of being was He?”   What kind of being are we going to become when we see him as he is (for that is what we too shall be by God's grace)?  Suggestions:  heavenly, spirit, incorruptible.  The fruit of which he is firstfruits    As he is, so shall we be.  If he is as the Father, then so shall we be for we are brethren.

I think ive given my perspective on this before. There is nothing in scripture that indicates to me that we will be given an ontological upgrade to 'God' status when we recieve our heavenly bodies. That much is clear. And I don't think you've specifically answered my question. The plain truth is that there simply is no intermediate category of 'being' (between angels and God) described anywhere in the Bible. If He is a lesser being than the Father, where does He fit?

Quote

My warmest regards.

Always a pleasure to converse with you Cubes.

Blessings to you and yours.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
If the basis of your faith is trinitarian theology it is very necessary that you try to establish certain things to stablise that faith.

The only begotten Son CANNOT be shown to be a true Son of God. If he was begotten as a Son in the beginning then there could be no trinity. Any separation shown would have to also deny eternal unity of being. Denying eternal unity denies the trinity. All verses showing the Word being “with God” and the Son being sent from heaven be must be understood in ways different to what the plain reading would say.

Others can be true sons of God-angels and even men, but THE Son of God becomes only another term for God Himself. God has a title of “son of God”. Sons of God can be shown even before the foundations of the earth are laid but there must never have been an only begotten Son or trinity theory would dissolve into oblivion.

Likewise he could not be a true son through Mary for the same reasons. Jesus must be said to be God who came in flesh and worked in his own powers and thus the term”incarnation” was evolved. The top priority in all arguments must be to deny the Sonship of the Son of God.

Now, despite all this denial certain matters must be made preeminent. Any verses that call the Son “God” must be found and highlighted despite their sometimes dubious quality to confirm he is a part of the God of the Jews. Surprinsingly too any suggestion of deity, though it suggests separation in being, must also be highlighted even if it says that deity dwells in him.

Orthodox theology must be preserved against the barrage of attacks from the Word of God.

Is this an open and honest approach to the study of the precious Word of God?

[NickHassan]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 05 2006,03:00)

Even if you have a primary and secondary God, its still polytheism to believe in more than one God.

Hi Is 1.18,
The fear of polytheism plagues the trinity doctrine and you show it here.
Was Paul a polytheist?
He said in 1Cor 8 there are many gods.

Was Jesus a polytheist?
He said even scripture calls men gods in Jn 10.35.

Would you so Judge Paul and even Jesus?

You must be consistent and agree they are, or think again.

[malcolm ferris]

Hi Is1:18

Thanks for the excellent and, as usual, thorough reply, I too enjoy finding out about your perspective on these subjects even if I do not always agree with it also. Hope your recovery is a rapid one and as painless as possible.

In my previous post I said:

Quote

I have a question of my own for you or anyone out there Was Jesus in his earthly life ever called God before he began his ministry after John baptized him on the river Jordan?

You wrote:

Quote

A few of verses come to mind, there are others… – In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1) – Isaiah saw whose glory, and spoke of whom? (John 12:41) – Who laid the foundations of the World? (Heb 1:10)

Perhaps I should have emphasized my question a bit better, the question I was asking was:

Was Jesus IN HIS LIFE ON EARTH, IN HIS FLESHLY INCARNATION ever called God prior to the beginning of his ministry which is signaled by the baptism of John on the river Jordan?

However in reference to your answer I submit the following comments:

John 1:1 – I do not hold to the view that the Word is an exclusive designation or appellative for Jesus.

In the Targum (transcripts of the Hebrew scrolls to the Aramaic that was commonly spoken by the majority of the Jews – apparently as a result of exile Hebrew was not the common tongue of the Jews of the day) The Memra (Aramaic form of the word LOGOS) is a well know appellation for God used by the Rabbis to avoid some of the difficulties and disparities found in the Old Testament, for example whenever there was an anthropological reference to God, the word(s) used to describe God were replaced with Memra (The WORD). So as to avoid any implications that God was in any way seen or depicted in a form at all like human beings. (A thing I find amusing in the light of the fact that the original human being was made in the image of GOD) Anyway it was these Targum that were often recited in the synagogues of that day instead of the original Hebrew scrolls. So John here in this first chapter of His gospel is showing I believe how that Jesus' in his earthly ministry is the explanation of the enigma found in this Memra designation of God.
The Rabbis taught that there were 6 major attributes of God expressed in the use of the Memra:

1. The memra is individual and yet the same as God
2. The memra was the instrument of creation
3. The memra was the instrument of salvation
4. The memra was the visible presence of God or Theophany
5. The memra was the covenant maker
6. The memra was the revealer of God

The proof of the memra (Word) that John speaks of as God fulfilling these 6 attributes is seen in Jn1:1-18
Jn1:1 – attribute #1
Jn1:3 – #2
Jn1:12 – #3
Jn1:14 – #4
Jn1:17 – #5
Jn1:18 – #6

As a digression for a moment – consider all life as we know it, there are some principles that apply throughout.
Each life in its many varied forms is distinct from other forms of life, for example the life of fish is distinct from the life of birds, the life of mammals distinct from the life of reptiles, more specifically the life of a violet is distinct from the life of a say a petunia. Yet all life has one thing in common at least and that is this: that the life itself is invisible. What we see is the form that expresses that particular type of life. The form itself can vary also, from a seed – a potential life at this stage, to a shoot, a bud, a flower a fruiting body…
So no life is seen except it is given a body to manifest the life. We are also told by Paul that there are bodies terrestrial and bodies celestial which differ in glory. Then we come to the phrase – 'the Tabernacle of God' (Rev 21:3) and Paul gives us the understanding that this earthly body is a 'tabernacle' (1 Cor 5:1). So it would appear that God is not without a body.
Now we call the life that is manifest in a bird – bird life. The life manifest in a cat – cat life. The life manifest in a human – human life. A male kitten is a baby cat, the son of some father cat. A male puppy is a baby dog, the son of some father dog. A male human baby is the son of some human father. The life and the form are identified as one and the same. Yet none of us are our bodies, we are not ourselves without our body.

In this fashion we are completely dissimilar to God therefore who exists without any body. God is a Spirit, Eternal, Invisible, Immortal (unable to die)
So how then can man be made in His image? Simple answer – the spirit of man. Yet due to the transgression and sin, this spirit of man is now not the image of God at all but rather the image of flesh, a carnal nature motivated by the senses and lusts of the flesh.

This condition was not always prevalent in man. Before sin we were made in a transient form which was lower than the angels as to form, yet capable of and intended to be elevated to a position (rightfully) above that of angels. (Heb 2:5-7) However as a result of sin and the acquisition of a carnal nature we have become even lower than the creatures of the earth as they are incapable of immorality.

It is my belief that the spirit of man was to become of a higher order – to come to the tree of Life and immortality, eternal life. This would place the sons of God in a position just below God – which is as close to equality as we will ever get. This was a position that Jesus held before his earthly incarnation and it was in this state of body that God indwelt him to enact creation – creating all things by him.

Some questions that spring to mind in the light of this would include: why did He do it like this, did He have to do it this way, could He not have just created without doing it this way…
Why did He do it this way? It suited His great will and purpose – His good pleasure to do it this way.
Did He have to do it this way? He is God, He can do as He likes, He chose to do it using His son as the agency or channel, the visible expression of Himself.
Couldn’t He have just created without doing it through Christ? Yes, of course He can.

So through Jesus Christ – He (God) created all things and redeems all things to Himself. This puts him (Jesus) in a position and status as the first and unique son – such that we will never compare to him in terms of glory or assessment. Yet, once redeemed we are as he is in the sense of being sons of God, being in that position with the benefits that pertain to it, chief of which to us at this time is the promise of eternal life.

With this in mind then looking at Hebrews 1:

God who at various times in differing forms and fashion spoke to the Hebrew fathers in prophets has in the last times spoken to us in His son.
Whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom He also made the worlds.

Looking at this with the thought in mind that He changes not (Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8) – therefore If the same God was manifest to the fathers as was fully declared in the Son of God (Father and Son) then the OT being a shadow of the NT would show this as it does – God and Prophets is the foreshadow of Father and Son. God spoke to them, speaks to us. And the form is diverse – yet it is the same unchanging God revealing Himself.
We are then told that He (God) appointed His son to be heir of all things (Heb 2:6-11, 1 Cor 15:27-28 put this into perspective)
Also that by him (Jesus His son) He (God) made the worlds – how? (Heb 11:3) By His Word – He spoke – in Jesus His son. It says in Heb 11:3 that:

Through faith we understand that the worlds
were made by the Word of God,
so that things which are seen
(Jesus is seen – is visible – therefore a visible form had to be made to facilitate this! – on earth a form visible and perceptible to human eyes and fleshly senses – a form like unto us. And in Heaven a form visible and perceptible to spiritual eyes and senses)
were made by an invisible God – the KJV says: 'things which are seen were not made by things which do appear'

So the visible creation was made by an invisible God by His Word.
Jesus Christ being a channel for God to this end – being a visible expression of the invisible God.

Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the Word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

So Jesus is the visible form of the invisible God, the manifestation of God who is Light (light is not visible until it is refracted or reflected)
the manifestation of God who is Word (television and radio waves are not peaceable unless you have the right kind of equipment to receive and interpret their signals)
The express image of His person – His person expressed in a form to project an image called the Son of God.
Jesus upheld all things by the power not of his own Word but the Word of God his Father.
His power (authority) was to do this to hold all things up to God who is the Almighty – the all powerful one.

Quote

– Isaiah saw whose glory, and spoke of whom? (John 12:41)

This is speaking of Is 53 in which Jesus' life and ministry is foretold in some detail. He is referred to as the 'arm of the LORD (YHWH) revealed.' which is entirely consistent with what I have just outlined – he is not the LORD (YHWH) but in him the LORD is revealed – His strength/power ability to bless and curse (Right Arm) is shown and seen on earth in His son.

Quote

– Who laid the foundations of the World? (Heb 1:10)

In this chapter as in much of the scripture the person speaking or being spoken of jumps about as we can see is the case
Verses 1-2 the subject is God
Verses 3-4 the subject is Jesus
Verses 5-8 the subject is primarily God
Verse 6 the subject is Jesus
Verse 7 the subject is the angels
Verse 8-9 the subject is Jesus
Verse 10-14 the subject is primarily God
I might add as a footnote that the subject is always ultimately God in some sense – be it relative to His person or to His work(s)

Quote

Okay. So you agree that the Son was of the exact same nature/substance as His Father, and they are therefore ontologically the same? After all I have seen you write ‘kind begets like kind…’. We agree on this. Where we differ is the origin of the Word. You say He had a beginning as every son does. I can’t accept that for two reasons: 1. I find NO biblical evidence of a pre-incarnation begettal. There simply isn’t any. Yahshua never alludes to it; neither do any of the OT or NT writers. 2. I find compelling evidence attesting to eternality – Micah 5:2, John 1:1, John 8:58, Heb 7:3….

To elaborate – His life came from God and is therefore eternal – without beginning or end.
But his being – in order to be a son and for this to have any meaning – had a point of origin – not as created – so we use the term begotten.
His life is eternal life as is the life of any son of God. The expression of this in a being is another matter.
The closest natural approximation to this we have is the type of Adam and we all being associated with Adam and therefore the transgression that came in as a result of him – we are associated with him by the life – in Adam was the breath of life (or lives). Even as the faith type of this is Abraham – who is the father of all who believe on the promise of His Word.
One is a natural seed, the other a faith seed. Both speak of life as a common factor to produce a life stream or lineage. One is life by the natural course of natural seed transmitted and received. The other is life by the spiritual course – by the Word – transmitted and received.

The substance/nature in this case then is invisible – life – the expression is not – is in various forms and for various purposes, and in varying degrees of glory.

Quote

1. I find NO biblical evidence of a pre-incarnation begettal.

I find evidence throughout of a uniform understanding of God that He is ONE LORD – the strong ONE bound by an oath. Not many – the revelation is that He is ONE and this is set forth and manifestly declared:
First in a shadow and in types (Heb 10:4) in the OT by Prophets and in various forms (a pillar of fire for example) so that God was manifest to them as a Father (Ex 4:22) – with that intention – to hover them as a hen does her brood (Mt 23:37) Yet he remained aloof to them because of the hardness of their hearts.
Secondly in the very image of God, the real- the Light – the Word manifest in Flesh – God IN Christ – to accomplish what was not accomplished under the Law of a carnal commandment.
This does not make it now Two Gods but rather one God and He had a son – in whom and through whom and by whom He is declared in every sense of the word, both as pertaining to creation in which God is echoed, and salvation and future leadership.
This in turn facilitated an avenue for the redemption of His children, the sons of God, a means by which they could be restored to the rightful position and status that was forfeited through sin in the garden. The accomplishment of which does not now make many Gods – rather ONE God with His great family.(Eph 3:14-15)

As to the matter of a pre-incarnation begettal – as stated previously GOD is ONE – A Person – A Great Eternal Spirit Being – Of which I do not pretend to even begin to understand. Yet by the means and fashion that He is pleased to so do – He has declared Himself to us, and by that we may understand Him as well as we may – namely by His Word. Which is primarily expressed through His son Jesus Christ who it is very clear, existed before his incarnation.
Now as to whether that existence was in a visible form or not, whether it was a body as we call a body…
There could be much conjecture on this, personally I hold the view that he existed in a form a body – as a tabernacle or theophany for God to work through.
As I have stated above God exists without a body, we as sons – exist within bodies and without a body are not said to have being or existence. That a spirit can and does have a body is evident in the scriptures. So the pattern I see is that life as it comes forth to be expressed is done so in a body and this is inextricably linked to the being of that life in an individual. GOD Himself being the obvious exception – yet insofar as His person being expressed and therefore known (to whatever extent this may be possible) he also is bound by His own Word and uses forms and body(ies) to declare Himself.

The logic therefore (not that logic is the be all and end all) is thus, no bodies existed eternally – God alone exists as a person a being eternally – all other beings exist when brought forth either from God (begettal) or by God through a creative act and are expressed in bodies to this end.

Quote

2. I find compelling evidence attesting to eternality – Micah 5:2, John 1:1, John 8:58, Heb 7:3….

Micah 5:2 …whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting – Who is going to be the ruler in Israel – this can be viewed from different standpoints as either God or Jesus, forth both are in their own sense true. Jesus' goings forth are FROM eternity – He came forth out of the Eternal One.
And his goings forth are from of old – he was the first of all sons of God – and existed alone with His Father – seeing things come forth in Heaven and then on earth. He is the beginning of God being expressed – and the end (or intent) of that expression in creation.

John 1:1 – I have already spoken to some degree on this and will leave it at that for now.

John 8:58 – Jesus said 'before Abraham was, I am. – I know what you are alluding to the designation of God to Moses: tell them 'I AM that I AM' – “I AM” has sent you. So once again as in many cases in the words of Jesus – it is applicable to both Father and Son. To the Father who is speaking in him in so much as He is the great I AM that is spoken of here, and to the Son who is speaking his Fathers word, he did exist before Abraham with his Father.
Although personally I think it is God who is speaking here IN His son and not the latter.

Hebrews 7:3 – this speaks not of the son of God but one made LIKE unto him. I believe God made a physical body for His eternal Spirit to use – called Melchizedek – even as he formed a fire or light to appear to the children of Israel in. I believe this man simply appeared on earth, fully mature – representing God, and once God had represented Himself by this form – He returned the elements that He had used to form this man for His purpose, back to their original status. I believe he also formed a couple of bodies for two angels to inhabit temporarily to the end of preaching to Lot and his family. (Gen 18)
(But that is just my opinion, certainly not shared by others who contribute to this forum.)

This one is said to have no mother or father. Jesus had a Father – and not just on earth but previous to this and he had memory of it (Jn 17:5) I do not believe that the Glory he had with His father was a shared glory of being GOD – it was the glory of being the agent for God second only to God and in a form therefore said to be 'the form of God'. Whether you believe this or not you have to concede that Paul could not accurately state 'having neither father or mother, beginning of days or end of life, abides a priest continually' meaning Jesus as being this one.
For Paul would have had to say instead: 'having had no mother or father before coming in flesh'… verse 15 would make no sense otherwise which states that:

“And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there arises another priest – was Jesus incarnate several times? Once as Melchisedec before he came as Jesus? I do not believe so. It says after the similitude not in identical form and fashion. So personally I do not see this applying to him at all.

Quote

(and of course there is the quantum physics implications of existing in the time-less environ of “the beginning”, but we've already discussed that issue in detail, and I think you know my thoughts well)

I will concede that time as we know it and call it and measure it does not preclude the existence of a whole pre-time creation.
For time as we know it is measured by reference to the movement of heavenly bodies in space. Measured by elements of creation in creation.

Quote

I disagree here as well. I think Phil 2:5-7 shows that while he had equality (positional, as ontological would be a foregone conclusion), He chose to relinquish it (whatever that entails)to take on the form of a bondservant. So, although there were overt limitations evident in his human life, I see no evidence of this applying pre-incarnation, or post ascention – for that matter. Yes, he remains a man – but one that can uphold the entire created order by the word of his power!! (Heb 1:3)

ROMANS 2:16
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

I read here that God is going to Judge BY Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ who upholds all things by the Word of God's power. His word having power therefore also as it is authorized by God, he being the authorized and authenticated channel or agency of God and for God.

Yes he chose to relinquish it and therefore to go from the form of God – a spirit form body or theophany – to be made lower – to take on a form like ours.
I read that God has made him heir of all things – that God put him above angels and men, yet I also read that he is not above God, nor does he ever put himself above God, but rather puts all things that God has put subject to him – and himself – under God, subject to Him – that God may be all in all.

Quote

So given your answer was ‘no, He wasn’t of a lower class of being’ and you reject the binatarian/trinitarian concept of plurality within unity, how is it that you don’t believe in TWO Gods? Even if you have a primary and secondary God, its still polytheism to believe in more than one God. And especially so if you honour (John 5:23) and serve (Gr. latreuo¯) Him (Daniel 7:13, Rev 22:3, cf. Matt. 4:10), as you honour and serve the Father, as the Bible commands us to. That’s one of the MAJOR issue I have with your (and other’s) position on Christ. The polytheistic implications are overwhelmingly apparent to me. And I think this position is scriptually untenable in light of these scriptures: Deu 4:35, 39, 6:4-5; 32:39, 2Sa 22:32, Isa 37:20; Joh 5:44; Rom 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cr 8:4-6; 1 Ti 1:17, 2:5; Jud 1:25; Isa 43:10-11, Isa 45:5-22, Gal 3:20, Eph 4:4-6, James 2:19….[the list is long]I think the JW recognise this, and that's why they teach He is a created being. The christodelphians (and others) understand it as well, that's why they deny pre-existence althogether.

How is it that I don't believe in two God's? Because there is but ONE GOD, and he does not share HIS GLORY – the assessment that HE alone is God – with any other, not even His Son.
The glory of the Son is to be exalted as a Prince – the son of a King. He is called King in so much as he is King of all God puts under him, he is our Lord our head. And his head is GOD, his LORD is God, The LORD that said to our Lord sit at My right hand till I put all enemies under your feet.
If you consider the idea of God and his Son to be two Gods, then it would not be two but many many more – as many as there are sons of God.
But I do not believe that our being sons of God – or his (Jesus) being son of God makes any of us God.

Joseph being elevated by Pharaoh to his position and status did not make 2 Pharaohs so there is your earthly type from which we are to understand this relationship of co-rulership of Father and Son.

GENESIS 41:40-44
Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.
And Pharaoh took
off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck;
And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.
And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.

PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now I could go through all of the scripture you mentioned – it would be an exhausting process – but as you say – the list is long and goes beyond what you have stated – I have looked at the majority of those you referred to and assume those I did not look at are also affirming the fact that He Is ONE – to which I whole-heartedly agree, yet not in the way that you consider this to be ONE – not as more than one persona in the one being. But as one person – one being. From which came many persons, many beings called sons of God – who are not the same person, are not God, are eternal by virtue of the life they exist by but not eternal in every sense as they are begotten. Who are of the same life as their Father but are not their Father. Who are not co-qual, co-eternal, co-powerful, co-omniscient…
(Which having said this – is probably a mystery to all who read this -I suspect that everyone on this forum looks at my views sideways and shaking their heads)

Quote

I think the JW recognize this, and that's why they teach He is a created being.

Some people have difficulty seeing past the form that is created – to see a son of God who is begotten. We all no doubt struggle to see this in ourselves and certainly have trouble seeing it in others.

Quote

The Christadelphians (and others) understand it as well, that's why they deny pre-existence altogether.

True some people cannot see Jesus beyond a normal man, like us in exactly every way including (in some cases) the nature of his birth.

Quote

I don’t see how sharing glory with the Father before the foundation of the world necessitates a begettal. He would also share this glory had He always existed as well. Right?

It is expedient to consider what is Glory? What is the Glory of GOD? – what doe that mean?

Glory is the honor or esteem afforded or given to someone or thing.
Esteem or honor is given according to the perceived importance or value of that person or thing.
This involves and estimation to establish value or worth(iness) so that the honor can be stated and the glory expressed or seen and recognized.

The glory of winning an Olympic race for example is not solely in the wearing of a gold medal, not simply the prize gotten, that is part of it – of the recognition of it. But the glory is in the recognition gained by all that you are worthy of wearing that medal, holding the title of champion and therefore wearing that medal rightfully.

I CORINTHIANS 15:40
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

In this sense therefore the glory of the body – the form of God – that he had with his Father to be the tabernacle of God for the purpose of creation is one thing – the glory that he had on earth in a body of flesh – to be the manifest son of God – the tabernacle of God in this form, was another…

And this glory is restored to him and then seen on earth in the days to come (Rev 21:3)

I see what you are saying in your statement – 'He would also share this glory had he always existed as well. Right?' – but that would make God a God who changes – going from being God to being a man back to being God. That would not be an unchanging God.
It is not God who changes but the forms in which He is expressed that change (Heb 1:1) It is the same ONE God behind and in and through it all, that to my mind is the great revelation.

Quote

I don’t recall any verse in the Bible where men or angels were called “YHWH” or “Theos” and the context implied divinity, that’s the key difference here. When Yahshua is called God, deity is strongly implied. Afterall, how many Gods were there “in the beginning”?

There should be enough in the material above to address this issue.

Quote

Lets define our terms Malcolm, so we’re both on the same page: Here is what I think Colossians 2:9 means: Colossian 2:9 records “For in Him all the fullness of Deity (Gr. Theotes) dwells in bodily form.” (NASB). “Dwells” is the translation from the Greek word “katoikeo”, meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling.” “Fullness” is from the Greek word “pleroma” indicating that which “is filled up.” Theotes is used in this verse as an abstract noun for ‘theos’. It does not designate that Jesus was filled with the Father Himself. Paul would have used the noun ’theos’ if he wanted to convey this (note that Jesus is also said to be IN the Father in John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21). Nor can you translate “theotes” to mean a simple quality or attribute, it goes well beyond this, and instead refers to ‘divine essence’ or simply put the essence of what makes God….well…God! Thayer’s lexicon defines theotes as the “state of being God”.

Katoikeo – that is interesting – “…upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining…” Jn 1:33 ( a portion of it) – to take up residence in a dwelling place, he was and is the tabernacle of God.
You obviously agree – that Jesus – the man – born of a virgin – was born son of God (I hope). So it was the son of God that was a tabernacle of and for God. In a glory somewhat lower than that he previously held.

Let me illustrate to show how I veiw the fullness of GOD's being abiding in him (Col 2:9)

When he was sleeping on the boat in the storm (why? Because he was weary) – that was a man.
When he awoke and said to the waves and the wind 'be still' and they obeyed – that was God.
When he wept at the tomb of Lazurus – that was a man.
When he cried out 'Lazurus come forth' and he did – that was God.
When he prayed in the garden 'if it is possible let this cup be taken from me, but nevertheless not my will but Thine be done' – that was a man.
When he cried out on the cross and yielded up his spirit to God – that was a man – for God cannot die.
When he turned water into wine – that was God.
When he fed the multitudes by multiplying the bread and fishes – that was God.

What I see is Father and Son – the Christ (the one anointed with God – and God the Father therefore in that capacity) the Son of the Living God.
A god who has life in Himself – which is expressed in a fa
mily as sons.

Quote

Okay, so considering the all the Greek in this verse, Paul affirmed that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Jesus' body. This is an exceptionally emphatic statement of deity, and IMHO this kind of language is only applicable to YHWH. That’s JMTCW Malcolm. If you have a different take on Col 2:9, I’m happy to consider it.

I think I have covered this in the above.

Quote

When prophets spoke on God’s behalf they always made that clear (e.g. ‘Thus saith the Lord….”). Jesus was different in that respect, “He taught as One who had authority, and not as their teachers of the Law” (Matthew 7:29). Its important to undersand that their teachers of the law were afforded the highest respect, so the contrast is telling. He said things like “Moses wrote….But I say unto you” – and in doing so Yahshua demonstrated a marked difference between someone that delivers a message by proxy (e.g the prophets) and one who naturally assumes a divine prerogative.

When Jesus spoke he also made it clear that it was not his words but the Father's that it was not his own acts but the Father's – undoubtably the comparison of God working through Jesus and God working through prophets is like comparing a shadow to light. The prophets were not born as he was, so as vessels they were only very temporarily anointed, whereas in Jesus God dwelt in a permanent fashion – not from time to time but continuously.

“Moses wrote….But I say unto you” I looked for but could not find this anywhere – I read where they came to him to trap him with a question which went something like:

Moses wrote that if a man dies having a wife, but having had no children by her, then the man's brother is to take her to wife and have children by her…
They were trying to trap him with an earthly allowance given in the Law – he informed them that in Heaven such earthly matters are not a consideration.
He did not say anything contrary to Moses – he merely added to it to answer their question – adding what Moses had not written.

The only other place I find in the NT where it says 'Moses wrote' is where Jesus said to the religious leaders, 'you claim to believe Moses and he spoke of me, if you truly believed Moses, you would believe me for he wrote of me.

Now I concede that God through Moses giving the Law in the OT – came and magnified it into the Law of Grace and Truth through (or by) Jesus Christ.
But that doesn't make Jesus God.

In the OT I read of numerous places where the Spirit of the Lord came upon men. Including Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, David, Ezekiel to name a few…

JUDGES 3:10
And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim.

JUDGES 6:34
But the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered after him.

JUDGES 11:29
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

In the NT I read Jesus first ministerial statements:

LUKE 4:18-21
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

I see a likeness, a similarity here in the way God in times past worked and the way in which he moved in His Son. I see this stated by Paul in Heb 1:1

Quote

SIYCFOTA

Now that one's got me stumped…

See If You Can Figure Out That Aye???

WDYTOT?!?

Blessings 2U

Malcolm

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Some clarifications if you would please.

Is the appellation of “Word” to God, done by the Jews sufficient “biblical evidence” for you to state;

that the Father can be called the Word and
that the term Word can thus apply to the Father and the Son?

If Jesus is God in flesh [“a visible expression of the invisible God”]in what way does your doctrine differ from Modalism?

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Heb 8.1f
“Now the main point in what has been said is that we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the Throne of The Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary, and in THE TRUE TABERNACLE, which the Lord pitched, not man” cf Heb 9.24
v 5
“…Moses was warned when he was about to erect the tabernacle;..”
Ch 9.1f
“Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread ;this is called the holy place. And behinf the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies”
v 6
“..priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship”

So any earthly tabernacle is only a copy of the true heavenly. Any manifestation of God in the earthly copy does not mean He no longer dwells in the heavenly. Jesus went into the real and heavenly tabernacle for us opening the way to God.

[malcolm ferris]

Quote

Is the appellation of “Word” to God, done by the Jews sufficient “biblical evidence” for you to state; that the Father can be called the Word and that the term Word can thus apply to the Father and the Son?

My assertation here is that this is what John was doing – showing the satisfaction of the Memra of the OT to the ministry of Jesus in the NT

It is my understanding that Peter, James, John and the other original Apostles began to preach and teach Jesus in the synagogues to the Jewish believers and that Peter was then given the understanding that the Gentiles were to also receive the Gospel, the apostleship of which fell more predominantly upon Paul and his fellow workers.
Although by no means is this a statement that the original apostles were limited only to converting the Jewish people and the others Paul and co, to converting only the Gentile peoples – as each did preach and teach to both groups. But predominantly Paul did tend to identify himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Rom 11:13, 1 Tim 2:7, 2 Tim 1:11, Gal 2:7-9)

This being the case I believe that this first chapter of John's gospel is (amongst other things) showing with complete satisfaction the fulfillment of all of the 6 major attributes of the Memra in the ministry of Jesus, even as the compound redemptive title/names of YHWH were satisfied also in him.
In fact every righteous requirement God had in His Word for Messiah, and for the payment of sins penalty amongst other things was met in him, he was the satisfaction of God. (Isa 53:11,Heb 10:4-10)

If Jesus is God in flesh [“a visible expression of the invisible God”]in what way does your doctrine differ from Modalism?

As I understand it the 'modalist' concept of God is that Jesus is God as is held by the UPC and Pentecostal 'oneness' church groups. You will not find me saying that – though you might think you do. Read carefully – I am contending that Jesus is the Son of God – he was the son of God before he ever came to earth in flesh – even as God was his Father before he was ever known to men as such. I do believe that God is the Holy Spirit, not that He can only ever be either Father or Son or Holy Spirit at any one time. Take the manifestation of God in the life of Jesus for example – the full expression and full being of God was dwelling within that one who was called the son of God. Yet the son of God was also there, you saw one visible person and looking at him with understanding Peter could declare the Father and the Son to be manifest, and by direct extention therefore the Holy Spirit also – for God is A SPIRIT.

[Cubes]

Quote

Hi Cubes, good to hear from you.

Same here.  Hope you're feeling better from your GI thing.

Quote

Actually, I have to disagree here. We are told that “theos” indwells us. Never in scripture are we said to have “Theotes” indwell us, let alone the fullness of it permanently settling in our body. Its an important, and telling, distinction that Paul makes.

I'll look into “theos” and “theotes” and comment at a later date.  Still, it takes scripture to interpret scripture so we shall see.

Christ who has the fullness of the Godhead and since he has OVERCOME and RISEN, we agree that he is permanently exalted to sit at GOD's right hand.

We too are seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus but must endure and overcome until the end, as he himself has, to realize the permanence of the promises.

Quote

As to his humanity, He is exactly like us.

Not even that for he did not sin.  But I hear you.  He looked like us and knew us in our sufferings and trials.

Quote

But, as to his diety (theotes) Yahshua is nothing like us at all.

To the extent that God created man in his image, yes.  We could not hope to have a better resemblance nor could Jesus nor any other created thing.  Yes, I know, I said created.

Jesus is begotten of the Father and that is how he became a son.  I have no problem saying he was created prior for we both agree that he was not always a son but for different reasons.  His sonship is a privilege conferred upon him as much as ours.  Being the Word, the Speaker spoke/created and gave rise to him.  He is the Father's workmanship in as much as we are, except that he is excellent in all his ways because unlike us he loved righteousness and hated iniquity therefore God anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows and called him his own only begotten Son.  This privilege awaits those of us who overcome as well although we also know that he has the preemminence because he is our forerunner.

Only YHWH is uncreated as he is self-existing and the source of all living and gives rise to all living and sustains them, including Christ.  Albeit Christ is now given to have life in himself, and this life is the cure for the first death which came through Adam.

Quote

The writer of Hebrews wrote expressively of this and clearly delineated our respective 'glories' in Heb 3:1-6. We are His house, He is our builder.

We spoke about this some months ago.   Hebrews 3:1-6 together with Ephesians and the 1 Peter 2 reveal the whole story, which is that we TOGETHER WITH CHRIST, are the Temple which builder is God (God is shown to be the Father and God of Christ Jesus and none other).  We are told that we are fitly joined together with Christ even as a groom to his bride: flesh of his flesh and bone of his own bone.   So Christ himself is part of this building which we surely are… he is the head of it and the chief cornerstone.

[Cubes]

Clarification: All things are sustained by GOD through Christ.

[NickHassan]

Hi cubes,
God is the builder.
Jesus is the chief cornerstone.

?Equality?

[Sammo]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ June 06 2006,03:34)

Quote The Christadelphians (and others) understand it as well, that's why they deny pre-existence altogether. True some people cannot see Jesus beyond a normal man, like us in exactly every way including (in some cases) the nature of his birth.

Whoa, steady on! Jesus was the only begotten son of God, which makes him pretty unique in my books

Have just read through the last couple of pages – fascinating reading. It's very interesting seeing the two sides of the argument here – I've read a bit about the Arian Controversy recently, and nothing much has changed at all. The Arians found the concept of the 'mystery' impossible to accept (how could God die etc), whereas people who believe that Jesus is God (no such thing as 'Trinitiarians' until well after Nicea) called the Arians poly-theists. And this is exactly what's happening in this thread! Nothing new under the sun

No, I don't think Jesus did exist before his birth.

(ps – I like numbered question and answer approach, gets to the point)

[He’s Coming in the Clouds]

How can a word come into being unless first spoken? And if that word is not spoken, does it really exist until it is spoken. Jesus is the Word. He was spoken into existance by the Father. He was begat by the Father, in the beginning. And by the Word, and through the Word, all of creation came into existance. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[malcolm ferris]

Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ June 10 2006,14:29)

How can a word come into being unless first spoken? And if that word is not spoken, does it really exist until it is spoken. Jesus is the Word. He was spoken into existance by the Father. He was begat by the Father, in the beginning. And by the Word, and through the Word, all of creation came into existance. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

logos –
The word “logos” in Greek has an extraordinary range of meanings — the
heart of which is both “meaning” and “reckoning”. Hence, it may refer to a
“word” or a “thought” or a spoken phrase or an idea or that which conveys
something which, to the hearer, is meaningful and, thus, can move them. It
can be an accounting or a story, a tale, narrative, or fable. It can refer
to a theory, a rule of law or of conduct, a scientific hypothesis or lawful
observation regarding reality or nature. Within the individual it can refer
to a mental argument or a pondering of the reasons for/against. Thus, it
also means thinking or the faculty of reason. More generally, it may refer
to speech, talk, spoken stories or tales, and, even, rumors or everyday
conversation. There is often a connotative sense of a deepened reality
which is referenced by “logos”. Hence, for example, the gospel of John in
the Christian Bible begins with the phrase “in the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with God and the Word was God” — and “logos” is the word
used for “Word” in all three places (“en arche ein ho logos kai ho logos
ein pros ton theon kai theon ein ho logos”).
Also, the power of logos in relation to the condition of the soul is
is sometimes compared to that of drugs. Some logoi cause pain, others
delight, others fear, some make their hearers confident and
courageous while others drug and bewitch the sould with a kind of
evil persuasion. the power of logos in relation to the
condition of the soul is comparable to that of drugs. Some logoi cause pain, others
delight, others fear, some make their hearers confident and courageous while
others drug and bewitch the sould with a kind of evil persuasion.

Source http://users.california.com/~rathbone/greek.htm

Where did the manifest Logos come from?
A thought or a thinker.
This manifest Logos fully expressed the character and attributes of the thinker.

Given the great range of possible meanings for the word Logos, this makes John 1:1 a most enigmatic verse. Used by all to support their various understandings of the Nature of Theotes.

Does a WORD of God exist before it is spoken? good question.
I believe it does, I believe God's Word comes from His thoughts.
A word is a thought expressed. I believe His thoughts are eternal.
So although the expression has a beginning, the thought was with God beforehand. It is a part of Him expressed to show forth His great plan and purpose or to show forth of Himself.

[He’s Coming in the Clouds]

So you are saying it was a preconcieved plan before it was spoken. Are not all that is spoken first concieved in the hearts of men. It is not what enters the body that cause the man to sin, it is what comes from the body. From our hearts. So to say that the idea of creation or plan was with God even before the actual creation or birth of the Son is true. But is an idea the same as using the word to speak the actual word. Lord Jesus gave us the answer. If you look upon a woman with lust in your heart, it is as the same as if you were with here. So, is the trinity doctrine unsound? I believe it still is, for the spoken word is still that, the spoken word and can not be greater then he who spoke it into existance. Your argument is based on the omnipresent God. Most cannot fathom this understanding. You are doing well.

[Cubes]

Quote (Cubes @ June 07 2006,03:36)

…Christ is now given to have life in himself, and this life is the cure for the first death which came through Adam.

I wish to clarify this statement I made by adding that the life that Christ offers saves us from the second death, which has a worse consequence than the first.

[Author]

Posts