Did john say god became flesh? or was it satan at

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2009,19:25)

I will respond to you no more. You continue to twist what I said, into strawman argument so you will gain some kind of advantage, but have not correctly nor fairly presented what I expressed in my post yet.

Sorry you feel that way. I have been very careful to quote your own words and not misrepresent you.

Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2009,19:25)

I did not say the KJV “INFERS” anything. I said it TRANSLATES it to read that way. And no, it is not my interpretation of the KJV. It is what the KJV says.

Ok let me say it this way. The KJV does not translate to read your way which is…

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,18:46)

Jesus is a person, and when he speaks in the first person singular, he says “I” when referencing himself. And he calls himself “it.” Of course a person is “it.”

Those are your words; the KJV does not translate to read Jesus calling himself “It”, that is your strawman.
I find it amazing that you claim “a person is it”, yet you try to make the argument that the translators of John 1:3-7 were biased in translating the pronouns as “him” and not as “it” like the obscure translations you quote. So if a person is “it” as you say, then what is all the fuss about the Translators using the pronouns him in John 1:3-7? Thanks for reminding me of the word “Strawman”, I had forgotten that one.

Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2009,19:25)

And thinker thinks you are “big leaguers” here? Why?

I cannot vouch for what Thinker says, for I do not claim to be a big leaguer. Thinker is possibly referring to others that have challenged his faith here and not to himself. Being that he has studied scriptures for 34 years and has some training in the Greek, and then coming here and being challenged could very well be the reason for his statement. You should ask him or give him the benefit of the doubt. I can say though that I have been to other sights and this one has been most challenging. But I sure do not make the claim.

Blessings WJ

June 12, 2009 at 8:36 am#133299

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

Jesus is a person, and when he speaks in the first person singular, he says “I” when referencing himself. And he calls himself “it.” Of course a person is “it.”

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

Gene said to Paladin

Quote

Paladin………Please don't get discouraged here, there are those who understands and are encouraged by your posts Brother.

Gene,
Okay, if you understand the things Paladin says then why don't you decipher his statement for us,

Quote

Jesus is a person, and when he speaks in the first person singular, he says “I” when referencing himself. And he calls himself “it.” Of course a person is “it.”

Tell us what this is supposed to mean. What exactly is Paladin's point in saying that Jesus is an “it” and that a person is an “it.”

thinker

June 12, 2009 at 9:14 am#133300

Participant

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

And thinker thinks you are “big leaguers” here? Why?

WJ replied:

Quote

Paladin came to this board trying to pass himself off as some kind of intellect. My “big leaguers” statement was meant to convey that some of us here are going to make him prove what he says and not all are dumb sheep.

So far Paladin has proved NOTHING. His mishandling of the Greek has been exposed and his many oversights have been pointed out. For example, he conluded from various translations that the Word in John 1:3 is impersonal. Yet they all deny Paladin's conclusion. The Geneva Bible has a marginal note which says that the Word is Christ and is “God for all time.” All the translations Paladin gave identify the Word as the personal Son in verse 14.

Paladin says that these translations were “credible” for their own generation. Therefore, when these translations identify the Word as the personal Son they are “credible.” Will Paladin own up to what he said? Probably not. He would prefer to whine and say, “I'm not going to speak to you because you misrepresent me.”

I make Paladin a second and final offer: Would you like a little cheese with your whine?

thinker

June 12, 2009 at 2:58 pm#133305

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 12 2009,17:30)

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2009,19:25)

Sorry you feel that way. I have been very careful to quote your own words and not misrepresent you.

Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2009,19:25)

I did not say the KJV “INFERS” anything. I said it TRANSLATES it to read that way. And no, it is not my interpretation of the KJV. It is what the KJV says.

Ok let me say it this way. The KJV does not translate to read your way which is…

Quote (Paladin @ June 08 2009,18:46)

Jesus is a person, and when he speaks in the first person singular, he says “I” when referencing himself. And he calls himself “it.” Of course a person is “it.”

Quote (Paladin @ June 11 2009,19:25)

And thinker thinks you are “big leaguers” here? Why?

Blessings WJ

Hello WJ. I have been thinking about your post and it helps me understand why I get so angry with you. It is not because of your words after all. It is because I see a failure in my efforts to put my point accross so as to be understood.

I shall try again.

When the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament writers to pen their testimonies, he had a particular theme in mind. When the second generation Christians read the works produced by an amalgamation of the Spirit of God, and vessels of clay, there was an understanding produced in the choldren of men that has been forsaken for mainstream Christianity for almost two thousand years.

The Holy Spirit introduced to us, two very important concepts, and tied them to very special Greek words; Logos, and Reema. If you study the old covenant relation developed between those two words, you will find that both are written, both are spoken, and both go beyond just limiting parameter of just the words by which they are expressed.

The relationship between these expressions was already established back in Exodus 34:27 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these reema (words): for after the tenor of these logos (words) I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

The written account was established as reema, and the conceptual account was understood as logos. So that, if you had an idea, and wrote it doen you developed logos, then put it into a record in reema. Concept, logos; written record, reema.

Then Holy Spirit tells us in Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

I had been led by my teachers to believe that the reema was the sword, but my own research shows that the word “which” in verse 17 is a relative pronominal [neuter] adjective modifying neuter “Spirit” rather than [feminine] “Sword.” So it is not the sword which is the [neuter] reema, but it is the Spirit which is the reema.[There must be agreement in gender and number between pronouns [which] and their antecedents [spirit].]

In other words, the Spirit itself is the reema of God, and the Spirit itself is the inspiration behind the selection of the reema that goes into expressing the concepts developed in the logos.

To make it even deeper and better for Christians who care, there is an even more powerful tool made available to us.

Hebrews 4:12 For the logos (word) of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So you now have the reema/spirit expressing God's message, and the concept behind the message, which is sharper than the Spirit itself; even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart.

An absolutely beautiful concept expressed in reema, to aid us in comprehending logos.

But, upon the Holy Spirit's completion of commiting the logos to reema, (commiting the concept to a written account), Satan took over and convinced men to use a different approach than the Holy Spirit inspired methodology of presenting the Christian way of life to a new generation.

He appealed to the mind of men, that logic is the way to go; both as an aid to remembering, and as a key to understanding principles and concepts new to second generation Jewish converts.

So men began to teach “Christianity” beginning with the life of Christ, and never considered how much the teaching suffered from so radical a change in methodology. Men began to study John 1:1-18 as a cornerstone in the foundation of understanding Christianity.

The reality is, John's account was LAST, not first or fourth in the chronology of inspiration. So the understanding of the correct application of “logos of God” made a radical change in meaning, and has been the focal point of dissention ever since.

Question constantly comes up about “proof” that this is so. ALL the old chronologies present an understanding of the order of written works, and in every one of them, John is LAST; about 96 a.d.

And in almost every one of them Paul&#3
9;s work in Galatia is first or near first. If you follow the chronology in approximate order as it was written, you have –

48 a.d., Paul telling us “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but CHRIST LIVETH IN ME: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]

Twelve years later, in 60 a.d., Paul tells us he was given a commission to fully preach the “logos of God;” that he preached it “to the whole creation;” that it had been hidden in mystery from ages and from generations, but now is revealed to the saints, and that the mystery revealed and now expressed is “Christ in you,” and that this concpet is called “logos of God.”

“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the logos of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:” [Col 1:25-27]

Then, when I studied the translations, and found that the earliest translations understood logos to be properly considered “it” I looked further, and found that translation changes were made without explanation or reason. They did not even offer “newer scholarship” as a reason; that came from later generations who tried to justify the changes.

So you have Paul telling us that he is given a commission to fully preach the logos of God, which is a concept of “Christ living in you,” and we have John telling us about the logos of God which was personified, which is exactly what Paul was talking about.

Then, when I attempted to clarify this, I became hung up on showing that the pronouns do not tell the story claimed by the trinitarian “proof texts” and the exchanges went down hill from there.

Consider this post to serve two caused.

First, as apology for my outburst of frustration.

Second, as the central issue of my OP. I will not be sidetracked again, over issue of pronouns. The scripture story is way too important than my ruffled feelings. Any issue that is not to the point of my OP will henceforth be ignored. If addressed in another thread, and if I am notified, I may communicate to it, I may not, I have not seen it yet and reserve the right to respond or no.

If you wish to deal with the OP issues, I will continue to try to make it clear. Any other issues raised will be ignored.

June 12, 2009 at 3:18 pm#133306

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 12 2009,21:14)

Paladin said to WJ:

Quote

And thinker thinks you are “big leaguers” here? Why?

WJ replied:

Quote

I make Paladin a second and final offer: Would you like a little cheese with your whine?

thinker

Hello thinker.

Quote

Paladin came to this board trying to pass himself off as some kind of intellect.

o.k. Tell me something about myself from what I posted about myself.

Quote

My “big leaguers” statement was meant to convey that some of us here are going to make him prove what he says and not all are dumb sheep.

So that's it? I made you feel like you were “dumb sheep?” THAT I seriously doubt. Braggarts maybe, but “dumb sheep?”
Actually I never said anything about the intellect of anyone on the board unless it was in response to insulting remarks from others on the board, who in this post will remain nameless.

Quote

Do you know why those “little notes” were found IN THE MARGIN? BECAUSE the translators disagreed with them, but were trying to be fair by keeping them available to the reader as a possible rendering. Not likely, but possible, and doubted by the translators.

NOTHING in the translations offered by me “deny” anything about the conclusions offered in my post.

Quote

All the translations Paladin gave identify the Word as the personal Son in verse 14.

So did Paladin. Because John did. He remembered that he had written of the personification of the logos of God, and that he had written of Jesus being given a name “logos of God” and he brought the two together in John 1, only AFTER he told the history of the growth of the church, how people accepted Jesus, or rejected him, how both the Jews, and the nations reacted to his ministry, and covered years of historical circumstance in his first few verses. Yet YOU act like he was having a flashback to when Jesus was born as the logos of God becomeing flesh. But that is not what John was saying.

He had already told us about Jesus coming in flesh, in II John, almost ten years prior to his gospel. And his reference to “coming in flesh” had nothing to do with his being born of Mary. It is a reference to “Christ living in you” in the flesh.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, “but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh…”

Quote

Sure. Look at the post I posted to WJ.
Then Look at the information I posted right above this sentence.

I apologize for my earlier frustration. I will not be sidetracked again. And no, this is not a challenge to see if you can sidetrack me. I just do not want you to be disappointed if I do not respond to your posts.

If you posts communicate to the issues raised in my OP I will consider them. Nothing else.

June 12, 2009 at 4:36 pm#133314

bodhitharta

Participant

The Word of God is the expression of God as far as Jesus is concerned it is as if Jesus was the book of God made flesh. In saying that, I am saying emphatically that the Word of God precedes Jesus just like in the actual text the Word precedes the mention of Jesus. There would have been no issue at all if Jesus was actually God because John would have simply said “in the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the word was our God Jesus Christ” it would have been case close but that's not what was written.

The Word of God is an “it” Jesus is a “he” flesh makes gender. So “it” became “he” remember, God is not a Man nor a Son of Man. Jesus was sanctified by the Father in other words,

sanc·tify (saŋk′tə fī′)

transitive verb sanctified -·fied′, sanctifying -·fy′·ing

1.to make holy; specif.,
a.to set apart as holy; consecrate
b.to make free from sin; purify

Jesus was sanctified so that the word of God could dwell in him. The word of God is already Holy it doesn't get sanctified.

June 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm#133321

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,10:58)

Question constantly comes up about “proof” that this is so. ALL the old chronologies present an understanding of the order of written works, and in every one of them, John is LAST; about 96 a.d.

The problem with your theory is that the chronologies of the written scriptures are disputed and therefore it would be a slippery slope to build a doctrine on.

Secondly, we do not know for sure what information the Apostles shared or what letters or Gospels certain ones read or had in their possession in their time. Proof of this is the fact that Paul never speaks of John, John never speaks of Paul and Peter and as far as I know none of them quoted the Gospels or spoke of them.

So to say that it was common knowledge that “The spoken Word” was Christ in them is ambiguous. Christ in us is not “a spoken word” or the word that was preached that Paul was speaking of in Colossians. Christ is the way the truth and the life that the spoken Logos comes from.

“Let the word of Christ” dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. Col 3:16

It is the word “of” Christ, the Logos being personified because the Logos he speaks are Spirit and life. So Jesus can be said to be the “Logos” because he is the source of the “Logos” spoken word.

Revelation 19:13 supports this…

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and “his name is called The Word of God“.

And “out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword“, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Rev 19:25

The sword which is coming out of his mouth is the Logos, which seems to disagree with your premise that the Sword of the Spirit is not the Logo of God.

Therefore it makes more sense that because the book of Revelation preceded the Gospel of John that John is referring to Jesus who had the name Logos.

This same Word (Logos) who was with God and was God and according to Phil 2 was in the form of God, (Spirit) came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Blessings WJ

June 12, 2009 at 7:56 pm#133323

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 12 2009,12:36)

The Word of God is an “it” Jesus is a “he” flesh makes gender. So “it” became “he” remember, God is not a Man nor a Son of Man. Jesus was sanctified by the Father in other words,

sanc•tify (saŋk′tə fī′)

transitive verb sanctified -•fied′, sanctifying -•fy′•ing

1.to make holy; specif.,
a.to set apart as holy; consecrate
b.to make free from sin; purify

Jesus was sanctified so that the word of God could dwell in him. The word of God is already Holy it doesn't get sanctified.

Hi BD

Quote (bodhitharta @ June 12 2009,12:36)

The Word of God is an “it” Jesus is a “he” flesh makes gender. So “it” became “he” remember, God is not a Man nor a Son of Man. Jesus was sanctified by the Father in other words,

You are forgetting one big part of John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD“. or the literal, “GOD WAS THE WORD”

If what you are saying is true then the Father came in the flesh. That is ludicrous.

Jesus has the name “Word of God”, he said that the words he spoke were Spirit and life So words are spirit because they come from the Father and Jesus who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Jesus made a distinction between the flesh and the Spirit. John 3:6

So the Word which is Spirit, for the Lord is that Spirit, (2 Cor 3:17), that was with God and was God, came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3, Phil 2:6-8) or was Tabernacled among us. (John 1:14). For our bodies are temples that we and God lives in. This was none other than Jesus who is the “Word” before he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was given the name Jesus, of which John spoke of in 1 John 1:1-3.

Where did you get your info for the word “sanctified” in John 10:36?

The Greek word sanctified is “hagiazō” which can also mean…

1)to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow

It is used in the following scripture…

But sanctify (hagiazō) the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Peter 3:15

So your claim that because Jesus needed to be sanctified or “made holy” means that he is not God is ambiguous based on that verse unless you want to say that Peter was telling us to make God Holy by sanctifying (hagiazō) him in our hearts.

Blessings WJ

June 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm#133324

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

What is your proof that the translators disagreed with the notes. The translators of the Geneva Bible switched to the use of the personal pronoun in reference to the “light” in verse 10,

Quote

He was in the worlde, and the worlde was made by him: & the worlde knew him not

If the translators disagreed with the notes as you say then they surely did a poor job at making that clear. For the “light” in verse 10 is the “Word” of verse 1 and the translators employed both the impersonal and personal pronoun. Don't you think this is inconsistent and your conclusions shabby? Your conclusions are NOT built upon line upon line and precept upon precept.

The rule is that pronoun and antecedent must agree in gender. Even the NWT which is anti-trinitarian complies,

Quote

All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existance

The Geneva Bible and all the other translations you rely on departed from the rule in favor of their philosophical presupposition about the logos. And they weren't even consistent about it as I have already shown. This is why those translations are obscure now.

Paladin said:

Quote

So that's it? I made you feel like you were “dumb sheep?”

No you did not make me feel like a “dumb sheep.” You give the impression that you think people are “dumb sheep.” The fact that you called WJ “stupid” in a recent post is evidence of what I say. You said to WJ,

Quote

You are being so obviously stupid I hesitate to even respond to your rants.

You think that anyone who disagrees with you is a dumb sheep and “stupid.” When inconsistencies are pointed out you say that you are being misrepresented and you get whiny about it. I will continue to point out your inconsistencies and the fallacies of your twisted Greek “grammar.”

thinker

June 12, 2009 at 8:23 pm#133326

Participant

Hi Jack

Quote (thethinker @ June 12 2009,15:59)

What is your proof that the translators disagreed with the notes. The translators of the Geneva Bible switched to the use of the personal pronoun in reference to the “light” in verse 10,

That is a good point. The argument that the Translators of the modern translations were biased and changed the pronouns based on their perceived doctrines is a red herring, for the translators of the referenced older translations did the same thing.

Blessings WJ

June 12, 2009 at 8:32 pm#133327

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 13 2009,06:59)

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,10:58)

Question constantly comes up about “proof” that this is so. ALL the old chronologies present an understanding of the order of written works, and in every one of them, John is LAST; about 96 a.d.

(WJ) The problem with your theory is that the chronologies of the written scriptures are disputed and therefore it would be a slippery slope to build a doctrine on.

(P) Oh, well, thank goodness trinitarianism isn't “disputed.” Talk about a double standard! And speak of “building a doctrine on “a slippery slope???” Are you kidding me? I built nothing. I simply offered scripture in the chronological order in which it was revealed. No “doctrine,” no “creed,” no appeal to “My scholar is better than your scholar.”

As for there being any “dispute” over the chronology, WHERE is it? The ONLY place I find it is in the threads I post. Of course, I do not consider a sentence that says “It may have been written even later” to be dispute. That isn't even a disagreement. And offering alternate dates is neither dispute nor disagreement either. If it says “That cannot be because,” with a reason for a given date to be improbable or impossible, then you have a dispute.

(WJ)

Quote

(P) Peter references Paul's epistles and writings as
“scriptures.” II Pet 3:15 “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.”

But it really doesn't matter, the Old Testament authors didn't spend a lot of time quoting each other, but no one questions their authenticity because of it. If they had, then you would be accusing them of plagiarism.

(WJ)

Quote

So to say that it was common knowledge that “The Word” was Christ in them is ambiguous. Christ in us is not “a spoken word” or the word that was preached that Paul was speaking of in Colossians. Christ is the way the truth and the life that the spoken Logos comes from.

(P) Well it would go better for your argument if I had actually said that. I did not say that “the word” was Christ in them.”
I said “the mystery revealed and now expressed is “Christ in you,” and that this concept is called “logos of God.”

Do you see it?
The mystery revealed and now expressed –
is-
“Christ in you”
and-
that this CONCEPT of “Christ in you”
is CALLED the “logos of God.”

And THAT is a direct quote from scripture so you have no argument of “ambiguity” to offer, unless you wish to take on the scriptures themselves. I can continue to quote scripture in rebuttal all day long.

(WJ)

Quote

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. Col 3:16

(P)
I was speaking of the logos of God, not the logos of Christ. That is a different thing. The logos of Christ is comprised of the logos given by the Father to the son, in the form of reema, and which Jesus preached, and the believers believed, accepted, and obeyed. The “logos of God” as presented by John, is a far different thing.

(WJ)

Quote

Revelation 19:13 supports this…

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and “his name is called The Word of God“.

God placed his word above his name “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” [Psa 138:2]

And he promised to give Jesus a name above every name
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” [Phil 2:9]

“His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The logos of God.” [Rev 19:12-13]

And this “new name” was not a name pulled from eternity, but was “NEW, not previously known – “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my kainos [new] name.” [Rev 3:12]

kainos = 2537 kainos
Meaning: 1) new 1a) as respects form 1a1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn 1b) as respects substance 1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

So this is not a name from eternity, such as would be “in the beginning” of creation, but rather is a concept introduced “in the beginning” of the gospel ministry of Jesus Christ. Jesus agrees with this version, because he spoke accordingly –

John wrote of the beginning of creation – Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [ee arxee tees ktisews tou theou] beginning of the creation of God;

Mark, Peter, and yes, even John had already had experience referencing the “beginning of creation.” They already knew from prior authorship and from inspiration, how to express
“arxees ktisews” if the beginning of creation is what they want to express.

But John made two changes when he wrote his gospel.
1). He wrote [en arxee] and left off [ktisews] which he
had previously expressed, because he now has a different [arxee] in mind.

It is the same [arxee] he references in John 15:27 “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the [arxees] beginning.”

It is the same [arxee] he references in John 16:4 “But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the [arxees] beginning, because I was with you.”

John is here recording Jesus own testimony. Do you really think Jesus doesn't know how to reference “arxees ktisews?” Or do you really think John is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he means to express?

(WJ)

Quote

The sword which is coming out of his mouth is the Logos, which seems to disagree with your premise that the Sword of the Spirit is not the Logo of God.

(P)
I think you mean Rev 19:15
“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Nothing indicates the “sword” of this verse to reference the “logos” but rather, reema, because the only time “sword” was referenced as a “word of God” it was “reema” – “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the reema of God:” [Eph 6:17]

The logos is “sharper than any two edged sword” therefore, the sword coming out of his mouth is not the logos.” Didn't you even READ my post?

June 12, 2009 at 8:36 pm#133328

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 13 2009,08:23)

Hi Jack

Quote (thethinker @ June 12 2009,15:59)

What is your proof that the translators disagreed with the notes. The translators of the Geneva Bible switched to the use of the personal pronoun in reference to the “light” in verse 10,

Blessings WJ

WJ,

Yes, and if trinitarians are biased then so are anti-trinitarians for the NWT translators chose the personal pronoun. This is in keeping with the grammatical rule of which Paladin seems to be ignorant.

blessings,
thinker

June 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm#133370

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 13 2009,07:59)

Paladin said:

Quote

What is your proof that the translators disagreed with the notes. The translators of the Geneva Bible switched to the use of the personal pronoun in reference to the “light” in verse 10,

Quote

He was in the worlde, and the worlde was made by him: & the worlde knew him not

Get real!

Quote

What is your proof that the translators disagreed with the notes. The translators of the Geneva Bible switched to the use of the personal pronoun in reference to the “light” in verse 10,

“He was in the worlde, and the worlde was made by him: & the worlde knew him not”

Because the notes in question were not about verse 10 were they? Why do you jump to verse 10 when the discussion is about an entirely different verse?

Quote

Don't you think this is inconsistent and your conclusions shabby? Your conclusions are NOT built upon line upon line and precept upon precept.

Oh, and YOURS ARE? We are discussing verse one, and you justify it by jumping to verse 10? Well I guess to a trinitarian that constitutes “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Quote

If the translators disagreed with the notes as you say then they surely did a poor job at making that clear.

And of course everything about the trinitarian doctrine is crystal clear? Is that why so many trinitarian teachers say
“Oh, God is infinite and cannot be comprehended by teh finite mind of man?” Glad you cleared that one up.

Don't you understand, translators, commentatores, Lexicographers and teachers are vessels of clay, and do not make things clear? They try, but too often are obtuse due to bias or ignorance.

June 13, 2009 at 4:25 pm#133375

Participant

Paladin said:

Quote

Oh, and YOURS ARE? We are discussing verse one, and you justify it by jumping to verse 10? Well I guess to a trinitarian that constitutes “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

The “light” in verse 10 is the “word” in verse 1. Yes or no? If you say no then demonstrate it. And while you're at it explain why all the translations you invoke identify the Word as the Son in verse 14.

Paladin said:

Quote

Don't you understand, translators, commentatores, Lexicographers and teachers are vessels of clay, and do not make things clear? They try, but too often are obtuse due to bias or ignorance.

Earlier this week you claimed that your translations were “credible in their own generation.” Now you unwittingly deny this. You have admitted that the translators were vessels of clay who were “obtuse due to bias or ignorance.” You're going to have to keep one step ahead of me. You should have figured that I would refer you back to your claim that the translators were “credible.”

thinker

June 13, 2009 at 10:05 pm#133384

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ June 14 2009,04:25)

Paladin said:

Quote

Oh, and YOURS ARE? We are discussing verse one, and you justify it by jumping to verse 10? Well I guess to a trinitarian that constitutes “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Paladin said:

Quote

Don't you understand, translators, commentatores, Lexicographers and teachers are vessels of clay, and do not make things clear? They try, but too often are obtuse due to bias or ignorance.

thinker

(thinker)

Quote

The “light” in verse 10 is the “word” in verse 1. Yes or no?

(P) No! Not unless God separated the word from the darkness.
[Gen 1:3]

(thinker)

Quote

If you say no then demonstrate it.

(P) I'm sitting here brightly shining without saying a word. That's called a “demonstration.” Too bad you can't share in it.

(thinker)

Quote

And while you're at it explain why all the translations you invoke identify the Word as the Son in verse 14.

(P) I thought it was against the rules of the board to keep reposting the same information. Go back and read the thread, print it out, then highlight the pertinent parts with a magic marker.

Paladin said:

Quote

Don't you understand, translators, commentatores, Lexicographers and teachers are vessels of clay, and do not make things clear? They try, but too often are obtuse due to bias or ignorance.

Earlier this week you claimed that your translations were “credible in their own generation.” Now you unwittingly deny this. You have admitted that the translators were vessels of clay who were “obtuse due to bias or ignorance.”
You're going to have to keep one step ahead of me. You should have figured that I would refer you back to your claim that the translators were “credible.”[/quote]

I think YOU have misunderstood my point. You are obtuse, I AM OBTUSE, translators are obtuse, vessels of clay are obtuse, which is why God used vessels of clay to present his good news of the kingdom to a lost and dying world. No one has to be a scholar to comprehend it.

Otherwise, only the very bright could consider scripture, and only the very bright would be able to teach others. Obviously that lets me out, as well as others on this board. But genius does not have to be in our arsenal for us to comprehend what it takes to please God, and understand who he is.

Being obtuse, does not mean one is wrong, only that sometimes we have to reword a statement because we are not understood the first time around. That ever happen to YOU? It happens to me all the time. Obtuse is neither a bad word nor an insult. It is simply a fact of life with which we must learn to deal, if we intend seriously to communicate our thoughts one to another.

As for being one step ahead and anticipating your objection…
welllll….!!!!

June 15, 2009 at 11:13 pm#133584

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

Do you see it?
The mystery revealed and now expressed –
is-
“Christ in you”
and-
that this CONCEPT of “Christ in you”
is CALLED the “logos of God.”

No I do not see it. I see what you are saying, and that is not a direct quote from scripture.

I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Col 1:25-27 NIV

of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which [fn] is Christ in you, the hope of glory. NKJV

Of {this church} I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is,} the mystery which has been hidden from the {past} ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. NASB

Where are the words…

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

The mystery revealed and now expressed –
is-
“Christ in you”
and-
that this CONCEPT of “Christ in you”
is CALLED the “logos of God.”

The message Paul is bringing them by the preaching of the ‘Logos of God” is that Christ is in them and that was the mystery that was kept secret from past ages and generations. Jesus (God) has come to live in us by his Spirit.

The mystery that was kept secret is God now lives “in” his people. Christ in us the Hope of Glory. The Concept of Christ in us is not called the “logos of God”, those are your words.

Paul said…
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that “CHRIST JESUS IS IN YOU–unless, of course, you fail the test”? 2 Cor 13:5

for I know that through your prayers and the help given by “THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.* According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also “CHRIST SHALL BE MAGNIFIED IN MY BODY”, whether it be by life, or by death.. Phil 1:9, 10

The Mystery was Jesus being magnified in our bodies. God coming and making residence “in” his people was a concept that was not understood by the Hebrews or found in the Torah or Tanakh, and in fact the Angels desired to look into those things.

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. UNTO WHOM IT WAS REVEALED, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have “preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven“; which things the angels desire to look into. 1 Peter 1:11, 12

Can you see it yet? The Apostles use the terms Spirit of Christ and Spirit of God synonymously. That is because they are the “One Spirit” that we have been made to drink of. (Rom 8:9, 10, 1 Cor 12:13)

The Mystery is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God would graft us in to the vine (Rom 11:15, 16)

The Mystery is made known by the preaching of Jesus Christ and is made manifest, by the scriptures of the prophets, which is Christ in us the hope of Glory! (Rom 16:25, 26)

The Mystery is the wisdom of God, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: and none of the princes of the world knew. (1 Cor 2:7, 8)

The Mystery is “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ”… (Eph 1:10)

The Mystery is “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel”… and that from the beginning of the world it was hid in God who created all things by Jesus Christ. Eph 3:4-9

The Mystery is how that Christ who is the head of his Body the Church is one with the church as a husband and wife is one flesh. Eph 5:31-33

But none of these say that the “CONCEPT of “Christ in you” is CALLED the “logos of God”.

Christ in us is the Mystery and the “Logos of God” is the revelation of that mystery!

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

I was speaking of the logos of God, not the logos of Christ. That is a different thing. The logos of Christ is comprised of the logos given by the Father to the son, in the form of reema, and which Jesus preached, and the believers believed, accepted, and obeyed. The “logos of God” as presented by John, is a far different thing.

So what are you saying, that the “Word Jesus preached” is not the same “Word that John and the Apostles preached”?

Where are the scriptures that distinguish the “Logos of God” from the “Logos of Christ”?

That is merely more of your own inference. Are you saying that Jesus words are not the Word of God? How about the Gospel of Christ which is the Gospel of God, (Mk 1:1, Rom 1:1, 1:16, 15:16, 2 Cor 4:4, 9:13, 11:7, 1 Thess 2:2, 2:8, 9, 3:2, 2 Thess 1:8, 1 Pet 4:17.

Notice how Paul uses the terms synonymously. Is the Gospel of God, the Gospel of Christ the Word of God or not?

There is no distinction between the ‘Logos” Word and the “Rhema” Word in the scriptures. Paul and the Apostles make no distinction between the two because the following scriptures show that the “Logos” and the “Rhema” is preached…

Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to “PREACH THE WORD, (LOGOS)” in Asia, Acts 16:6

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the “WORD, (RHEMA) OF FAITH, WHICH WE PREACH”; Rom 10:8

”Preach the word, (Logos)”; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2

Where is the distinction in the above verses?

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

God placed his word above his name “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” [Psa 138:2]

And he promised to give Jesus a name above every name
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” [Phil 2:9]

But you should finish the quote…

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”.

Since we see that the “Word of God” is a name, and Jesus has been given that “name”, (John 1:1, 1 John 1:1-3, Rev 19:13), then when the Father exalted Jesus name above every name he is also making Jesus equal to the ‘Word”, (Ps 138:2) What does that tell you? He has exalted Jesus name above his own name.

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

God placed his word above his name “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” [Psa 138:2]

And he promised to give Jesus a name above every name
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” [Phil 2:9]

kainos = 2537 kainos
Meaning: 1) new 1a) as respects form 1a1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn 1b) as respects substance 1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

So this is not a name from eternity, such as would be “in the beginning” of creation, but rather is a concept introduced “in the beginning” of the gospel ministry of Jesus Christ.

Oh I see, you think that the “Logos of God” is the “New name”, so by that you have deduced that John 1:1 is talking about the New Creation.

Well then why didn’t they (Jesus and the Apostles) say so???

First of all Jesus says…

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, “KNOWN ONLY TO HIM WHO RECEIVES IT”. Rev 2:17

But I see that you left this verse out. Jesus clearly says that the new name written on the stone is NOT KNOWN to anyone except the one who receives it. So if it is the “Word of God” then how come we know it? So the “new name” cannot be the “Word of God”.

The terms “New name” are only found twice in Revelation and your assumptions are at best ambiguous.

Secondly, the term New Creation, ‘kainos ktisis’ is used of Paul in two places and is dealing with our new man that is born again by the Spirit. ( 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15). The first heavens and first earth has not yet passed away, (2Peter 3:10-12), so the New heavens and new earth has not come yet.

Paul wrote his epistles way before John. And John doesn’t even use the term “new creation” ‘kainos ktisis’, does he?

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

Jesus agrees with this version, because he spoke accordingly –

Did he? Where does Jesus ever use the term “‘kainos ktisis’ New creation?

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

If the “new creation” is what they wanted to express they would have used the word “kainos” with the word “archē” or “arxees kainos ktisews”, but they didn’t which leaves you guessing what they wanted to express, and of course that is what you have done.

The words ‘kainos ktisis’ New creation is not there. Don’t you think that John and Jesus knew what the “New creation” was to them, because later in the book of Revelation John writes…

And I saw a new (kainos) heaven and a new (kainos) earth: “for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea”. Rev 21:1

I still see a sea, don’t you? And apparently they forgot to notify Peter of this “new revelation” when he wrote…

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new (kainos)
heavens and a new (kainos) earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:13

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

But John made two changes when he wrote his gospel.
1). He wrote [en arxee] and left off [ktisews] which he had previously expressed, because he now has a different [arxee] in mind.

Just how do you jump to the conclusion that because John didn’t write ‘creation’ (ktisis) with the word ‘beginning’ that he is talking about a new creation, ‘kainos ktisis’? John uses the word archē for beginning many times where it is obvious he is not speaking of the “New creation” ‘kainos ktisis’. (John 2:11, John 8:44, 1 John 3:8).

Jesus also said…

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. Rev 1:8

And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. Rev 21:6

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Rev 22:13

If Jesus is meaning here that he is the beginning of the “New Creation” then why didn’t he mention it? Also if this is the beginning of the “New Creation” then why does he say that he is the end of it? Is the New creation going to end! So obviously Jesus use or the word “archē” (beginning) is not referring to the “New Heavens and New Earth for the first heavens and the first earth must pass away and melt with fervent heat and that hasn’t happened yet has it? (2 Peter 3:10-12)

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

It is the same [arxee] he references in John 15:27 “And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the [arxees] beginning.”

Of course Jesus would know how to reference “arxees ktisews” (beginning creation), but he didn’t because he was not referring to the “arxees ktisews”, he is simply referring to the beginning of his ministry. Do you think Jesus would know how to reference ‘kainos ktisis’ if he meant the “New Creation”?

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

I think you mean Rev 19:15
“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

The logos is “sharper than any two edged sword” therefore, the sword coming out of his mouth is not the logos.” Didn't you even READ my post?

I addressed this above. Nothing in the verse says that it isn’t the “Word of God coming out of his mouth either!

Would you say that the words proceeding out of the mouth of Jesus is less than the words of the Apostles?

Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to “PREACH THE WORD, (LOGOS)” in Asia, Acts 16:6

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the “WORD, (RHEMA) OF FAITH, WHICH WE PREACH”; Rom 10:8

”Preach the word, (Logos)”; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2

How about the use of the word “Rhema here…

And have tasted the “good word (Rhema) of God“, and the powers of the world to come, Heb 6:5 Notice it say “The Powers of the World to come’.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by “the word (Rhema) of God“, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Heb 11:3

Where is the distinction in the above verses?

Blessings WJ

June 15, 2009 at 11:41 pm#133585

Participant

Hi PD

Quote (Paladin @ June 12 2009,16:32)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 12 2009,14:59)

The problem with your theory is that the chronologies of the written scriptures are disputed and therefore it would be a slippery slope to build a doctrine on.

Oh, well, thank goodness trinitarianism isn't “disputed.” Talk about a double standard! And speak of “building a doctrine on “a slippery slope???” Are you kidding me? I built nothing. I simply offered scripture in the chronological order in which it was revealed. No “doctrine,” no “creed,” no appeal to “My scholar is better than your scholar.”

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 12 2009,14:59)

Peter references Paul's epistles and writings as
“scriptures.” II Pet 3:15 “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.”

I never said Peter didn’t reference Paul did I? But I did say that None of them reference John and John doesn’t reference them. So the point you are making that they had the revelation in common “Paul and John” about the Mystery being the “Word of God” is a red herring and is nothing more than inference. Also John, that I know of didn’t use the word “Mystery” in referring to “Christ in us” either did he?

And as far as the disputed chronologies of the written scriptures go, here is some facts about that…

Matthew
The date of the gospel is not precisely known. The majority of scholars date the gospel between the years 70 and 100.

Mark
There are differing opinions as to how late Mark could have been written. Most scholars agree with the Two-source hypothesis that proposes that Mark was one of the sources for the other Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke; according to this viewpoint the latest possible date for Mark depends on the dating of Matthew and Luke. A wide range of recent critical scholars believe that Mark was written at the earliest after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70

Luke
Some scholars place the date c 80-90. The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[39] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke.

John
Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100[29] for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars

Romans
The majority of scholars writing on Romans propose the letter was written in late 55/early 56 or late 56/early 57.[7] Early 58 and early 55 both have some support, while Luedemann argues for a date as early as 51/52 (or 54/55) following on from Knox who proposed 53-54. Luedemann is the only serious challenge to the consensus of mid to late 50s.

Colosians
The letter is supposed (or intended) to be written by Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment there (Acts 28:16, 30), probably in the spring of AD 57, or, as some scholars think, 62, soon after he had written his Epistle to Ephesians.

1 John
In the Christian New Testament, the First Epistle of John is the fourth catholic or “general” epistle. Written in Ephesus about AD 100-110,

Revelation
According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[16] The majority of modern scholars also use these dates.[17] Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that “it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign” (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book; however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution.[18]
According to Epiphanius of Salamis, the Revelation of John was written in the time of Claudius (PG, XLI 909-910).
Some exegetes (Paul Touilleux, Albert Gelin, André Feuillet) distinguish two dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian). Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community.

Look them up for yourself. They are found here…

Blessings WJ

June 16, 2009 at 12:31 am#133592