Dual Nature of Christ

[music4two]

When I began this subject matter, my hope was to point out that the functionality of a teaching (doctrine) was the most critical aspect. For the most part, no one responded to that side of the matter. Though I am more then capable of defending my stand from a theological and scriptural basis, the real question is why?

What purpose does it serve me or others to have endless debate on all the subtle nuances of Greek and Hebrew meaning when a simple look at the function can easily determine if the teaching is worthwhile pursuing. The only fruit that can come from such an activity is an intellectual, mental ascension pride trip. The only help in that is to make me less like Christ and more like the Pharisees. They strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel. I fear there are those on this board that seek to be teachers of the law rather then givers of Life.

A person can study the Greek or Hebrew of a matter. Study manuscripts and translations and even attempt to follow all the proper principles of Biblical study and still come up with the wrong teaching. On the other hand if a etching functions in that it draws you closer to relationship with Christ and enables you to become more like him, you can never be wrong.

Jesus always taught about Character, motive and intention. The teachers of the law pursued perfection thru obedience to the law as they interpreted it. They enacted laws for every scenario and thus avoided personal contact with the God of wisdom. They did not learn wisdom but rather relied on sets of rules. God’s desire has always been for those he created to become sons. For those sons to have the character and heart of He, Himself. This was the purpose for the great pattern we see in Jesus Christ. To show us perfected humanity. To not only give us an example to but build our faith that it is actually possible to become sons of God like Him. Without sonship, all the doctrine in the world is fruitless.

In my 30 years of ministry, I have many many times encountered those who had little or no education in scripture, yet had magnificent relationship with God. They were some of the most Christ like people I have ever met. They had more power in God. More understanding of Christ Character and heart and more proper heart for their fellow man then 99% of the Bible scholars I have known.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular and I make no personal judgment of anyone on this board. I do however beg that we all consider the “How does it function”  of what we are doing and teaching. It is good to study the word, but if what you conclude from scripture does not draw you closer to Christ, then you are wasting your time. If a person is teaching worthless doctrine then they are doing the work of Satan in that they are actually decieving others away from the truth and heart of God.

[Is 1:18]

Hello Music4two

Quote

Is the term “Word” used here literally refering to the person of Jesus Christ? Yes and no! I will explain in a bit. From the beginning Yahweh had a plan to redeem mankind. This description of God’s idea or plan was expressed as the Greek word Logos which was then translated into the term  “word” in John Chapter 1. The actual definition of word, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is…. ( a word) as encompassing an idea, a statement, a speech, not the mere name of an object…..  In there treatise on the subject they list dozens of scriptures where Logos is used in the above mentioned way. Then as a secondary meaning they use the scriptures in John 1/1 thru 18 and form a completely different meaning then all the rest of scripture. Is that honest? Where did that come from? It was simply made up. An illusion, a myth, promoted to make up evidence to support a false doctrine.

I think that while “logos” is borrowed by John from Greek philosophy, he greatly modified its connotation. The Greeks understand “logos” to mean the impersonal, but rational, ordering principle of the universe (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9048773). To them the logos made sense of the order they saw in the universe. But, John’s application, although it still retained some of the Greek’s inherent meaning, was obviously very personal in nature….he seemed to make a point of filling the Logos with personality……and I think that's the reason the large majority of scholars recognise that John was describing an actual personage in John 1:1-4.

“John's use of the word logos is entirely to be distinguished from the use made of it by Philo of Alexandria and his school of philosophy in the 2nd cent. B.C. With them the logos was a impersonal idea, conveying the thoughts of God.” (W.E.Vine The epistles of John, p.11)

Its also significant that the Greek word for “with” ( Gr. pros) in John 1:1b properly means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship) when used with the accusative (as it is in that clause):

“Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”(A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., 5:4)

This sentiment is reiterated in verse 2 (pros ton theon) reinforcing the eternal fellowship between the Father and the Logos. So this phrase cannot be referring to an abstract concept such as a plan/purpose/motive/intention coming from God. An adjective concept cannot be “pros” God….not in the sense that the Greek in this verse captures…..

Moreover, the other verb in John 1:1b (“was”; Gr. eimi) is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the Logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning. Plans/intentions are concieved, they have beginnings….so the notion that the logos was a qualitative looks shaky on this count as well.

Quote

The New Bible Dictionary, which has a clear trinitarian bias,  defines Logos as…  “a meaningfull discourse, declaration, discourse, subject matter, doctrine, affair, reason , cause, sake and respect. As a gramatical term it means a finite sentence., in logic a factual statement, definition or judgement, in rhetoric a correctly constructed piece of oratory.” Even Trinitarian sources cannot get away from the history of the Trinity and the true meaning of Logos. They even admit that the Logos = Christ doctrine came sometime after the gospels were pened and that scholars have varrying views of the meaning of Logos in this context. Granted this is a difficult scriptural passage to understand, but the definition of Logos is very clear and without doubt. We cannot ignor the definition in order to maintain a traditional meaning for this passage. Perhaps the best way to describe Logos is as the motives or intentions of God. Jesus was what God intended to create with Adam. Think of the Logos as the blueprint and Jesus as the building. God’s heart, character, motives and intentions are all sumed up in Jesus. In verse 1 The blueprint was with God. That is simple enough. God had an intention and a motive for that intention from the beginning. And the intention or motive was God. This too when seen from Hebrew thinking makes sence.

Here are some questions for you Music4two, I hope you don't mind answering them:-

[music4two]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 24 2006,02:22)

Hi m42, You say ” Finally God sends His own begotten son saying surely they will respect and listen to my own son.” So you agree the son already existed so he could be sent into the world?

In a word No. I do not believe Jesus existed before His birth. The plan for a Messiah and human heir to the thrown was in the heart and mind of God but not literally Jesus.
I think the problem with the interpretation of “sent” is in that some use Greek thinking and taking a literal Eastern approach to the word. Secondly the deffinition of the concept must fall in line with the rest of scripture.
John Chapter 17
 18″As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
(Jesus says even as He himself was sent so we are sent. In the same way!!! This clearly denies the statements that Jesus was literaly sent from Heaven. Otherwise the same must be said of His followers. In fact the word “Apostle” means “sent one”. Jesus’ life was orchestrated and directed by God. His work and His being sent to the house of Israel was from God in heaven. In like manner we as Christians in our work that is led by God are sent from heaven.)

[Adam Pastor]

BTW, music4two

thrown is spelt throne

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

He is the “only begotten son of God” Begotten meaning born.(like the rest of humanity)

Music4two

Really. Was your mother a virgin? Were you concieved by the Hody Ghost?

[music4two]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 25 2006,08:20)

Hello Music4two Quote Is the term “Word” used here literally refering to the person of Jesus Christ? Yes and no! I will explain in a bit. From the beginning Yahweh had a plan to redeem mankind. This description of God’s idea or plan was expressed as the Greek word Logos which was then translated into the term  “word” in John Chapter 1. The actual definition of word, according to Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is…. ( a word) as encompassing an idea, a statement, a speech, not the mere name of an object…..  In there treatise on the subject they list dozens of scriptures where Logos is used in the above mentioned way. Then as a secondary meaning they use the scriptures in John 1/1 thru 18 and form a completely different meaning then all the rest of scripture. Is that honest? Where did that come from? It was simply made up. An illusion, a myth, promoted to make up evidence to support a false doctrine. I think that while “logos” is borrowed by John from Greek philosophy, he greatly modified its connotation. The Greeks understand “logos” to mean the impersonal, but rational, ordering principle of the universe (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9048773). To them the logos made sense of the order they saw in the universe. But, John’s application, although it still retained some of the Greek’s inherent meaning, was obviously very personal in nature….he seemed to make a point of filling the Logos with personality……and I think that's the reason the large majority of scholars recognise that John was describing an actual personage in John 1:1-4. “John's use of the word logos is entirely to be distinguished from the use made of it by Philo of Alexandria and his school of philosophy in the 2nd cent. B.C. With them the logos was a impersonal idea, conveying the thoughts of God.” (W.E.Vine The epistles of John, p.11) Its also significant that the Greek word for “with” ( Gr. pros) in John 1:1b properly means “to, towards” (i.e. face to face in relationship) when used with the accusative (as it is in that clause): “Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”(A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., 5:4) This sentiment is reiterated in verse 2 (pros ton theon) reinforcing the eternal fellowship between the Father and the Logos. So this phrase cannot be referring to an abstract concept such as a plan/purpose/motive/intention coming from God. An adjective concept cannot be “pros” God….not in the sense that the Greek in this verse captures….. Moreover, the other verb in John 1:1b (“was”; Gr. eimi) is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word being in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the Logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning. Plans/intentions are concieved, they have beginnings….so the notion that the logos was a qualitative looks shaky on this count as well. Quote The New Bible Dictionary, which has a clear trinitarian bias,  defines Logos as…  “a meaningfull discourse, declaration, discourse, subject matter, doctrine, affair, reason , cause, sake and respect. As a gramatical term it means a finite sentence., in logic a factual statement, definition or judgement, in rhetoric a correctly constructed piece of oratory.” Even Trinitarian sources cannot get away from the history of the Trinity and the true meaning of Logos. They even admit that the Logos = Christ doctrine came sometime after the gospels were pened and that scholars have varrying views of the meaning of Logos in this context. Granted this is a difficult scriptural passage to understand, but the definition of Logos is very clear and without doubt. We cannot ignor the definition in order to maintain a traditional meaning for this passage. Perhaps the best way to describe Logos is as the motives or intentions of God. Jesus was what God intended to create with Adam. Think of the Logos as the blueprint and Jesus as the building. God’s heart, character, motives and intentions are all sumed up in Jesus. In verse 1 The blueprint was with God. That is simple enough. God had an intention and a motive for that intention from the beginning. And the intention or motive was God. This too when seen from Hebrew thinking makes sence. Here are some questions for you Music4two, I hope you don't mind answering them:- Is the predicate in John 1:1c definite, indefinite or qualitative? And if it's the latter – is there another verse (or part thereof) in the New Testament with predicate nominative grammatical construction where the anarthrous noun “theos” is used, BUT which carries a qualitative connotation? ”The Word was God” (John 1:1c) – How can the ‘”motives or intentions” be associated with “theos” in the definite sense, or if the predicate noun is qualitative, why does John attribute divinity to it?……what was John's overarching diadactic intention in writing John 1:1c? In what sense was the Logos “pros” (toward, face to face in relationship) theos? ”In him was life; and the life (Gr. zoe) was the light of men” (John 1:4) – how could a adjectival concept like the “motives or intentions” of God, be said to have “life” in him? What was John teaching us here? Philippians 2:6 tells us that Jesus (v5) “existed in the form of God”. How could the “motives or intentions” of God have existed (huparcho) in the form (Gr. morphe = nature) of God? Philippians 2:7 tells us that the Jesus (v5) “emptied (Gr. kenoo) Himself, taking (Gr. lambano) the form of a bond-servant”. Both Greek words clearly imply a volitional act. How could this language EVER be applied to the “motives or intentions” of God? Gotta go Blessings

I think that the author John Bland does a very good dieeertation of John 1

Personally, I believe the best place to start as we examine the theology of pre-existence is with the gospel according to John. No other historian of Jesus alludes to the theme of “pre-existence” nearly to the extent that John does. Consequently, much of the theology existing today has been inspired by John's gospel. Not only is the interpretation of John primarily responsible for the view that Jesus was “God incarnate” but it is also the main contributor to the doctrine that also includes the “Holy Spirit” among the “Godhead” — thus the “Holy Trinity.”
As mentioned in the introduction, a person's theology will color his translation of the Greek. Such is the case with the gospel of John. Undoubtedly, the theme of John is set forth in chapter one and is developed from there. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic commentary on the “Holy Trinity” was developed by alluding first to their translation of John 1:1-14. For this reason it behooves us to look at some of these verses first.
The KJV and most that have followed have rendered John 1:1 thus.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word translated “Word” is logoV
(logos). Most scholars would agree that “word” is inadequate as a definition of logoV. Vine defines it thus:

“a. Denotes the expression of thought — not the mere name of an object as embodying a conception or idea… b. A saying or statement…”39

Doctor Adam Clark defines it in this fashion.

“It signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning.”40

As previously mentioned, the entire original manuscript of John was penned in Greek capital letters. Given this fact, to capitalize this word in the English is to interpret its meaning and this is what the majority of versions do. Just the fact that they capitalize it in this verse proves their Trinitarian bias and paradigm. It does not mean that they are wrong in their theology; it only identifies what their theology was as they entered their labors. If you change the translation of logoV to a lower case “message” it carries a greater meaning than the English “Word” and changes completely the theology contained therein.
In addition to capitalizing and translating logoV “Word”, they also translated the Greek word proV (pros) “with” — which is not its general use in the accusative case. ProV, as with most prepositions, has a very strong directional sense. Chase and Phillips define its use in the accusative as:

To, towards, with reference to, according to.41

ProV (Pros) is not the word in the Greek that would have been used if John wanted us to understand the “Word” was “with” God in the English sense. “Meta” (meta) would have been used to convey that sense. In John 1:1, I agree with those that render it as “directed toward”.
Another thing that happens with this verse in most English translations is the repositioning of the phrase “and 'God' was the logoV,” which is the order it appears in the Greek text. Sometimes switching the sequence of a sentence does not influence the meaning but in this case an entire theology can be bolstered as a result. Therefore, you see it translated “and the Word was God” in most English translations instead of “and 'God' the message was”.
Another important point that needs to be discussed here is that — in the opinion of most Greek scholars — at least the first portion of the John text is in poetic form. The poetic form that occurs is that the first word or principle meaning of the next sentence is the last word or principle meaning of the proceeding sentence. In view of this, let me quote what is in my opinion a superior translation of the passage:

In the beginning was the message,
And the message was directed toward God,
And “God” the message was.

As you can see illustrated by the above rendering, “message” is the last word of the first line and becomes the first primary word of the second line. “God” — which is the last word of the second line is the first primary word of the next line. This poetic structure appears in other portions of the “prolog” to John, such as:

What has been done in it was life,
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness,
But the darkness did not understand it. (vv. 4-5)

As you can also intuit, a tremendous change in theology can be derived by the above translation. Let me emphasize that the above IS a valid rendering and that it is not a perversion designed to undermine the Trinitarian view. The translator, Frank Daniels, did NOT hold the view contained in this thesis when he translated John.
Translating the first verse with the lower case “message” rather than the upper case “Word” also causes the pronoun autoV (autos) — translated “he” by the “authorized” versions — to be translated “it”, “this” or “the same” because it refers to a neuter “message” rather than a person “Word”. Instead of the normal rendering of verse 2 which is,

He (autoV) was in the beginning with (proV) God.

it is translated

The same (autoV) was directed toward (proV) God in the beginning.

The pronoun autoV will be masculine or neuter depending upon the gender of the word to which it refers. Of course, we all know that “word” is neuter anyway. However, the KJV assumed that logoV — in this case — was a male person, i.e., “Jesus Christ,” so they rendered autoV “he.” Do you see what I mean by translator bias? You don't need to be a Greek scholar to notice this bias if it is pointed out to you.
Even the “authorized” versions do not uniformly translate autoV “him” in verses 2 through 4. In verse 2 cited above, they render autoV “He”. In verse 3, they give autoV as “him”. However, in verse 4, they switch to “it”. They are not being disingenuous here, only interpreting according to their paradigm. Instead of the KJV rendering,

All things were made by him (autoV); and without him (autoV) was not any thing made that was made. In him (autoV) was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness and the darkness comprehended it (autoV) not (emphasis and Greek mine).

the alternative would continue the poetic structure with a different and consistent translation of the pronoun autoV as follows:

Through it (autoV), all things were done.
And without it (autoV) nothing was done.
What has been done in it (autoV) was life.
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness.
But the darkness did not understand it (autoV).

Do you see the seeds of a “new” theology emerging? The “authorized” rendering of verses 3-5, certainly demonstrates the personification of the Greek logoV (translated and capitalized “Word”) by the additional rendition of autoV as “he” and “him”. On the other hand, by translating logoV “message” and (autoV) “it” you project an entirely different connotation to verse 14 — which I believe states concisely the theme of the gospel of John.
Whereas the “authorized” version gives it as:

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

the alternative would read,

And the message was embodied (made flesh) and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth.

The “authorized” rendering of John 1:3-5 also strongly implies that the personified “Word” was the creator by translating the Greek word dia “by ” instead of “through.” Almost all later versions, including the RSV, NASV, ASV and NIV, correct this bias of the KJV and give it as “through.” However, most follow the error that is compounded by translating egeneto (egeneto) — a form of the word ginomai (ginomai) — “made”, strongly implying in this context create when the basic meaning is “happen”! Wilson aptly comments on its use here as follows:

“Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create, yet in most versions it is translated as though the word was ktizw (ktizo). 'The word appears fifty three times in John, and signifies to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted.”42

Reader, egeneto NEVER carries a “creation” meaning and is never translated such outside the four times rendered such in the first chapter of John (John 1:3,4, & 10) and in these cases the translators strongly suggest create by translating egeneto “made.”
Are you beginning to understand the powerful influence of paradigm in the translation process? These men were brilliant scholars and certainly understood the English language and the nuances of word usage. It is easy to identify their bias in this example. I reiterate that it does not necessarily mean that their interpretation and theology was incorrect. It most assuredly shows, however, that their Trinitarian bias (coupled with their fear of King James whose many titles included “Defender of the Faith) “colored” their translation.
If we agree that the proper translation of egeneto is “were done” — which fits this context — you have the makings of a whole new interpretation. Instea
d of the logoV “message” being the creator itself, it becomes the reason that the “all things” under discussion in this text were “done.” Therefore, the rendering

Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.

could be interpreted as saying that God brought “all things” into focus historically through and on account of the pre-existent “message,” and his whole plan was conceived and purposed toward this end. The next verse identifies the goal of this “message” as “life.”

What has been done in it was life. And the life was the light of humanity.

This also explains verse one's description, “And 'God' the message was.” God was the source, inspiration, and accomplisher of this plan and the pre-existent and forthcoming “message” would direct mankind toward this truth. God was the content of the message. The great Revelator, omnipotent and omniscient One described by Paul as one who “… calls things that are not as though they are” (Rom. 4:17), would be declared and glorified by a uniquely prepared individual — the Anointed Jesus. In other words, instead of having the person of the “Anointed” pre-existing as God, you have the “message” of the “Anointed” pre-existing and “directed toward God.” This message is the same message spoken to Abraham and Moses.
A good example of this distinction can be seen in Ephesians 1:4. Paul writes that Christians were “chosen in him (the Anointed Jesus) before the foundation of the world.” No one argues from this verse that Christians literally pre-existed but that the plan and purpose of God for their redemption pre-existed. If this is true concerning the believer (the goal of the message), couldn't it also be true regarding the “Anointed” (messenger) himself? If not, why not? Simply put, God had the believer in MIND before he existed so why could not the “Anointed” have existed only in God's MIND before it became flesh?
In the author's opinion, this view makes much more sense than trying to explain Jesus as being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. In addition, this principle can be enjoined in all references to the pre-existence of the “Anointed” in the New Testament. Even the difficulty of making the switch from the neuter pronoun to the masculine in the first chapter of John is removed when you understand that Jesus of Nazareth was the “message” of God personified rather than “God personified”. So the it “message” was embodied in the “flesh” in verse 14. We didn't observe the message itself, but the GLORY of the message, viz the embodiment of the message: Jesus — a he.

And the message was embodied and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth.

This view also agrees with John's use of the neuter in introducing the subject of 1 John. Here, John also introduces Jesus from the standpoint of a neuter “message” rather than a person “he” Compare with me John 1:1-4 and 1 John 1:1-2. John 1:1-4 has:

1 In the beginning was the message,
And the message was directed towards God,

And “God” the message was.

2 The same one was directed towards God in the beginning.

3 Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.

4 What has been done in it was life.

And the life was the Light of humanity.

In 1 John 1:1-2 he writes:

1 What was from the beginning,
What we heard, What we saw with our eyes,
What we observed and our hands felt
Concerning the message of life.

2 And the life appeared,
And we saw and are testifying and are declaring to you
the life, the eternal life,
which was directed toward the Father
and which appeared to us.

In 1 John 1:1-2, all scholars render the subject as neuter. Some translate it “that” instead of “what” but there is no difference in the meaning. John emphasizes that “what” they had seen and heard — their “hands felt”. When you think on it, a “what” would require substance of some sort in order to be heard, understood and felt, wouldn't it? And this is just what John is alluding to. Jesus, as the Anointed, was the embodiment of the “message” of “life” — the “message” that directed people towards the giver of life — the “Father”. This also agrees with the concept raised by Jesus in John 14:19. There Jesus taught Philip, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” Was he saying they had literally seen God? No one claims this is the case! If he did not intend it literally then how did he mean it? They had beheld the “message” of God personified in him — not God Himself! Isn't this what John was teaching in John 1:18?

No one has ever seen God. The unique son, the one who is at the bosom of the Father, that one has related him.

In the above verse, the word translated “related” is exhghsato (exegesato) and is translated “declare” by the KJV. It is the word we derive our English word exegesis. Vine defines it as:

EXEGEOMAI (exhgeomai), lit., to lead out, signifies to make known, rehearse, declare… In John 1:18, in the sentence 'He hath declared Him,' the other meaning of the verb is in view, to unfold in teaching, to declare by making known. See Tell.43

Jesus, as the Anointed One, related to them everything that the “message” residing in him intended. Thus, through his life and teaching they had seen God — His character, His love, His desire for their deliverance and abundant life, etceteras. As they examined Jesus, they beheld the “life” of John 1:4. As they lived with him, listened to him and touched him, they “heard… saw … felt … the message of life.”
Not only is this view more sensible and consistent, but it also makes the unique man Jesus even MORE compelling — if that is possible. This will be developed in detail before the end of this work.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

In a word No. I do not believe Jesus existed before His birth. The plan for a Messiah and human heir to the thrown was in the heart and mind of God but not literally Jesus. I think the problem with the interpretation of “sent” is in that some use Greek thinking and taking a literal Eastern approach to the word. Secondly the deffinition of the concept must fall in line with the rest of scripture. John Chapter 17 18″As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. (Jesus says even as He himself was sent so we are sent. In the same way!!! This clearly denies the statements that Jesus was literaly sent from Heaven. Otherwise the same must be said of His followers. In fact the word “Apostle” means “sent one”. Jesus’ life was orchestrated and directed by God. His work and His being sent to the house of Israel was from God in heaven. In like manner we as Christians in our work that is led by God are sent from heaven.)

Just another attempt by the carnal mind to explain away the Diety of our Lord thus disgracing that Eternal Life that John by the Holy Ghost Spoke of!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

think that the author John Bland does a very good dieeertation of John 1 Personally, I believe the best place to start as we examine the theology of pre-existence is with the gospel according to John. No other historian of Jesus alludes to the theme of “pre-existence” nearly to the extent that John does. Consequently, much of the theology existing today has been inspired by John's gospel. Not only is the interpretation of John primarily responsible for the view that Jesus was “God incarnate” but it is also the main contributor to the doctrine that also includes the “Holy Spirit” among the “Godhead” — thus the “Holy Trinity.” As mentioned in the introduction, a person's theology will color his translation of the Greek. Such is the case with the gospel of John. Undoubtedly, the theme of John is set forth in chapter one and is developed from there. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic commentary on the “Holy Trinity” was developed by alluding first to their translation of John 1:1-14. For this reason it behooves us to look at some of these verses first. The KJV and most that have followed have rendered John 1:1 thus. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Greek word translated “Word” is logoV (logos). Most scholars would agree that “word” is inadequate as a definition of logoV. Vine defines it thus: “a. Denotes the expression of thought — not the mere name of an object as embodying a conception or idea… b. A saying or statement…”39 Doctor Adam Clark defines it in this fashion. “It signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning.”40 As previously mentioned, the entire original manuscript of John was penned in Greek capital letters. Given this fact, to capitalize this word in the English is to interpret its meaning and this is what the majority of versions do. Just the fact that they capitalize it in this verse proves their Trinitarian bias and paradigm. It does not mean that they are wrong in their theology; it only identifies what their theology was as they entered their labors. If you change the translation of logoV to a lower case “message” it carries a greater meaning than the English “Word” and changes completely the theology contained therein. In addition to capitalizing and translating logoV “Word”, they also translated the Greek word proV (pros) “with” — which is not its general use in the accusative case. ProV, as with most prepositions, has a very strong directional sense. Chase and Phillips define its use in the accusative as: To, towards, with reference to, according to.41 ProV (Pros) is not the word in the Greek that would have been used if John wanted us to understand the “Word” was “with” God in the English sense. “Meta” (meta) would have been used to convey that sense. In John 1:1, I agree with those that render it as “directed toward”. Another thing that happens with this verse in most English translations is the repositioning of the phrase “and 'God' was the logoV,” which is the order it appears in the Greek text. Sometimes switching the sequence of a sentence does not influence the meaning but in this case an entire theology can be bolstered as a result. Therefore, you see it translated “and the Word was God” in most English translations instead of “and 'God' the message was”. Another important point that needs to be discussed here is that — in the opinion of most Greek scholars — at least the first portion of the John text is in poetic form. The poetic form that occurs is that the first word or principle meaning of the next sentence is the last word or principle meaning of the proceeding sentence. In view of this, let me quote what is in my opinion a superior translation of the passage: In the beginning was the message, And the message was directed toward God, And “God” the message was. As you can see illustrated by the above rendering, “message” is the last word of the first line and becomes the first primary word of the second line. “God” — which is the last word of the second line is the first primary word of the next line. This poetic structure appears in other portions of the “prolog” to John, such as: What has been done in it was life, And the life was the light of humanity. And the light shone in the darkness, But the darkness did not understand it. (vv. 4-5) As you can also intuit, a tremendous change in theology can be derived by the above translation. Let me emphasize that the above IS a valid rendering and that it is not a perversion designed to undermine the Trinitarian view. The translator, Frank Daniels, did NOT hold the view contained in this thesis when he translated John. Translating the first verse with the lower case “message” rather than the upper case “Word” also causes the pronoun autoV (autos) — translated “he” by the “authorized” versions — to be translated “it”, “this” or “the same” because it refers to a neuter “message” rather than a person “Word”. Instead of the normal rendering of verse 2 which is, He (autoV) was in the beginning with (proV) God. it is translated The same (autoV) was directed toward (proV) God in the beginning. The pronoun autoV will be masculine or neuter depending upon the gender of the word to which it refers. Of course, we all know that “word” is neuter anyway. However, the KJV assumed that logoV — in this case — was a male person, i.e., “Jesus Christ,” so they rendered autoV “he.” Do you see what I mean by translator bias? You don't need to be a Greek scholar to notice this bias if it is pointed out to you. Even the “authorized” versions do not uniformly translate autoV “him” in verses 2 through 4. In verse 2 cited above, they render autoV “He”. In verse 3, they give autoV as “him”. However, in verse 4, they switch to “it”. They are not being disingenuous here, only interpreting according to their paradigm. Instead of the KJV rendering, All things were made by him (autoV); and without him (autoV) was not any thing made that was made. In him (autoV) was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness and the darkness comprehended it (autoV) not (emphasis and Greek mine). the alternative would continue the poetic structure with a different and consistent translation of the pronoun autoV as follows: Through it (autoV), all things were done. And without it (autoV) nothing was done. What has been done in it (autoV) was life. And the life was the light of humanity. And the light shone in the darkness. But the darkness did not understand it (autoV). Do you see the seeds of a “new” theology emerging? The “authorized” rendering of verses 3-5, certainly demonstrates the personification of the Greek logoV (translated and capitalized “Word”) by the additional rendition of autoV as “he” and “him”. On the other hand, by translating logoV “message” and (autoV) “it” you project an entirely different connotation to verse 14 — which I believe states concisely the theme of the gospel of John. Whereas the “authorized” version gives it as: And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. the alternative would read, And the message was embodied (made flesh) and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth. The “authorized” rendering of John 1:3-5 also strongly implies that the personified “Word” was the creator by translating the Greek word dia “by ” instead of “through.” Almost all later versions, including the RSV, NASV, ASV and NIV, correct this bias of the KJV and give it as “through.” However, most follow the error that is compound ed by translating egeneto (egeneto) — a form of the word ginomai (ginomai) — “made”, strongly implying in this context create when the basic meaning is “happen”! Wilson aptly comments on its use here as follows: “Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create, yet in most versions it is translated as though the word was ktizw (ktizo). 'The word appears fifty three times in John, and signifies to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted.”42 Reader, egeneto NEVER carries a “creation” meaning and is never translated such outside the four times rendered such in the first chapter of John (John 1:3,4, & 10) and in these cases the translators strongly suggest create by translating egeneto “made.” Are you beginning to understand the powerful influence of paradigm in the translation process? These men were brilliant scholars and certainly understood the English language and the nuances of word usage. It is easy to identify their bias in this example. I reiterate that it does not necessarily mean that their interpretation and theology was incorrect. It most assuredly shows, however, that their Trinitarian bias (coupled with their fear of King James whose many titles included “Defender of the Faith) “colored” their translation. If we agree that the proper translation of egeneto is “were done” — which fits this context — you have the makings of a whole new interpretation. Instead of the logoV “message” being the creator itself, it becomes the reason that the “all things” under discussion in this text were “done.” Therefore, the rendering Through it, all things were done. And without it nothing was done. could be interpreted as saying that God brought “all things” into focus historically through and on account of the pre-existent “message,” and his whole plan was conceived and purposed toward this end. The next verse identifies the goal of this “message” as “life.” What has been done in it was life. And the life was the light of humanity. This also explains verse one's description, “And 'God' the message was.” God was the source, inspiration, and accomplisher of this plan and the pre-existent and forthcoming “message” would direct mankind toward this truth. God was the content of the message. The great Revelator, omnipotent and omniscient One described by Paul as one who “… calls things that are not as though they are” (Rom. 4:17), would be declared and glorified by a uniquely prepared individual — the Anointed Jesus. In other words, instead of having the person of the “Anointed” pre-existing as God, you have the “message” of the “Anointed” pre-existing and “directed toward God.” This message is the same message spoken to Abraham and Moses. A good example of this distinction can be seen in Ephesians 1:4. Paul writes that Christians were “chosen in him (the Anointed Jesus) before the foundation of the world.” No one argues from this verse that Christians literally pre-existed but that the plan and purpose of God for their redemption pre-existed. If this is true concerning the believer (the goal of the message), couldn't it also be true regarding the “Anointed” (messenger) himself? If not, why not? Simply put, God had the believer in MIND before he existed so why could not the “Anointed” have existed only in God's MIND before it became flesh? In the author's opinion, this view makes much more sense than trying to explain Jesus as being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. In addition, this principle can be enjoined in all references to the pre-existence of the “Anointed” in the New Testament. Even the difficulty of making the switch from the neuter pronoun to the masculine in the first chapter of John is removed when you understand that Jesus of Nazareth was the “message” of God personified rather than “God personified”. So the it “message” was embodied in the “flesh” in verse 14. We didn't observe the message itself, but the GLORY of the message, viz the embodiment of the message: Jesus — a he. And the message was embodied and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth. This view also agrees with John's use of the neuter in introducing the subject of 1 John. Here, John also introduces Jesus from the standpoint of a neuter “message” rather than a person “he” Compare with me John 1:1-4 and 1 John 1:1-2. John 1:1-4 has: 1 In the beginning was the message, And the message was directed towards God, And “God” the message was. 2 The same one was directed towards God in the beginning. 3 Through it, all things were done. And without it nothing was done. 4 What has been done in it was life. And the life was the Light of humanity. In 1 John 1:1-2 he writes: 1 What was from the beginning, What we heard, What we saw with our eyes, What we observed and our hands felt Concerning the message of life. 2 And the life appeared, And we saw and are testifying and are declaring to you the life, the eternal life, which was directed toward the Father and which appeared to us. In 1 John 1:1-2, all scholars render the subject as neuter. Some translate it “that” instead of “what” but there is no difference in the meaning. John emphasizes that “what” they had seen and heard — their “hands felt”. When you think on it, a “what” would require substance of some sort in order to be heard, understood and felt, wouldn't it? And this is just what John is alluding to. Jesus, as the Anointed, was the embodiment of the “message” of “life” — the “message” that directed people towards the giver of life — the “Father”. This also agrees with the concept raised by Jesus in John 14:19. There Jesus taught Philip, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” Was he saying they had literally seen God? No one claims this is the case! If he did not intend it literally then how did he mean it? They had beheld the “message” of God personified in him — not God Himself! Isn't this what John was teaching in John 1:18? No one has ever seen God. The unique son, the one who is at the bosom of the Father, that one has related him. In the above verse, the word translated “related” is exhghsato (exegesato) and is translated “declare” by the KJV. It is the word we derive our English word exegesis. Vine defines it as: EXEGEOMAI (exhgeomai), lit., to lead out, signifies to make known, rehearse, declare… In John 1:18, in the sentence 'He hath declared Him,' the other meaning of the verb is in view, to unfold in teaching, to declare by making known. See Tell.43 Jesus, as the Anointed One, related to them everything that the “message” residing in him intended. Thus, through his life and teaching they had seen God — His character, His love, His desire for their deliverance and abundant life, etceteras. As they examined Jesus, they beheld the “life” of John 1:4. As they lived with him, listened to him and touched him, they “heard… saw … felt … the message of life.” Not only is this view more sensible and consistent, but it also makes the unique man Jesus even MORE compelling — if that is possible. This will be developed in detail before the end of this work.

Music4two

You can put your trust in men and their explanations of the scriptures all you want.

But the most original text that we have reveals the truth. Men for centurys have tried to destroy the evidence of the Deity of Christ and it still screams loudly in thier face. I suppose if they could they would destroy every bible in the world and rewright thier own!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

think that the author John Bland does a very good dieeertation of John 1 Personally, I believe the best place to start as we examine the theology of pre-existence is with the gospel according to John. No other historian of Jesus alludes to the theme of “pre-existence” nearly to the extent that John does. Consequently, much of the theology existing today has been inspired by John's gospel. Not only is the interpretation of John primarily responsible for the view that Jesus was “God incarnate” but it is also the main contributor to the doctrine that also includes the “Holy Spirit” among the “Godhead” — thus the “Holy Trinity.” As mentioned in the introduction, a person's theology will color his translation of the Greek. Such is the case with the gospel of John. Undoubtedly, the theme of John is set forth in chapter one and is developed from there. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic commentary on the “Holy Trinity” was developed by alluding first to their translation of John 1:1-14. For this reason it behooves us to look at some of these verses first. The KJV and most that have followed have rendered John 1:1 thus. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Greek word translated “Word” is logoV (logos). Most scholars would agree that “word” is inadequate as a definition of logoV. Vine defines it thus: “a. Denotes the expression of thought — not the mere name of an object as embodying a conception or idea… b. A saying or statement…”39 Doctor Adam Clark defines it in this fashion. “It signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning.”40 As previously mentioned, the entire original manuscript of John was penned in Greek capital letters. Given this fact, to capitalize this word in the English is to interpret its meaning and this is what the majority of versions do. Just the fact that they capitalize it in this verse proves their Trinitarian bias and paradigm. It does not mean that they are wrong in their theology; it only identifies what their theology was as they entered their labors. If you change the translation of logoV to a lower case “message” it carries a greater meaning than the English “Word” and changes completely the theology contained therein. In addition to capitalizing and translating logoV “Word”, they also translated the Greek word proV (pros) “with” — which is not its general use in the accusative case. ProV, as with most prepositions, has a very strong directional sense. Chase and Phillips define its use in the accusative as: To, towards, with reference to, according to.41 ProV (Pros) is not the word in the Greek that would have been used if John wanted us to understand the “Word” was “with” God in the English sense. “Meta” (meta) would have been used to convey that sense. In John 1:1, I agree with those that render it as “directed toward”. Another thing that happens with this verse in most English translations is the repositioning of the phrase “and 'God' was the logoV,” which is the order it appears in the Greek text. Sometimes switching the sequence of a sentence does not influence the meaning but in this case an entire theology can be bolstered as a result. Therefore, you see it translated “and the Word was God” in most English translations instead of “and 'God' the message was”. Another important point that needs to be discussed here is that — in the opinion of most Greek scholars — at least the first portion of the John text is in poetic form. The poetic form that occurs is that the first word or principle meaning of the next sentence is the last word or principle meaning of the proceeding sentence. In view of this, let me quote what is in my opinion a superior translation of the passage: In the beginning was the message, And the message was directed toward God, And “God” the message was. As you can see illustrated by the above rendering, “message” is the last word of the first line and becomes the first primary word of the second line. “God” — which is the last word of the second line is the first primary word of the next line. This poetic structure appears in other portions of the “prolog” to John, such as: What has been done in it was life, And the life was the light of humanity. And the light shone in the darkness, But the darkness did not understand it. (vv. 4-5) As you can also intuit, a tremendous change in theology can be derived by the above translation. Let me emphasize that the above IS a valid rendering and that it is not a perversion designed to undermine the Trinitarian view. The translator, Frank Daniels, did NOT hold the view contained in this thesis when he translated John. Translating the first verse with the lower case “message” rather than the upper case “Word” also causes the pronoun autoV (autos) — translated “he” by the “authorized” versions — to be translated “it”, “this” or “the same” because it refers to a neuter “message” rather than a person “Word”. Instead of the normal rendering of verse 2 which is, He (autoV) was in the beginning with (proV) God. it is translated The same (autoV) was directed toward (proV) God in the beginning. The pronoun autoV will be masculine or neuter depending upon the gender of the word to which it refers. Of course, we all know that “word” is neuter anyway. However, the KJV assumed that logoV — in this case — was a male person, i.e., “Jesus Christ,” so they rendered autoV “he.” Do you see what I mean by translator bias? You don't need to be a Greek scholar to notice this bias if it is pointed out to you. Even the “authorized” versions do not uniformly translate autoV “him” in verses 2 through 4. In verse 2 cited above, they render autoV “He”. In verse 3, they give autoV as “him”. However, in verse 4, they switch to “it”. They are not being disingenuous here, only interpreting according to their paradigm. Instead of the KJV rendering, All things were made by him (autoV); and without him (autoV) was not any thing made that was made. In him (autoV) was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness and the darkness comprehended it (autoV) not (emphasis and Greek mine). the alternative would continue the poetic structure with a different and consistent translation of the pronoun autoV as follows: Through it (autoV), all things were done. And without it (autoV) nothing was done. What has been done in it (autoV) was life. And the life was the light of humanity. And the light shone in the darkness. But the darkness did not understand it (autoV). Do you see the seeds of a “new” theology emerging? The “authorized” rendering of verses 3-5, certainly demonstrates the personification of the Greek logoV (translated and capitalized “Word”) by the additional rendition of autoV as “he” and “him”. On the other hand, by translating logoV “message” and (autoV) “it” you project an entirely different connotation to verse 14 — which I believe states concisely the theme of the gospel of John. Whereas the “authorized” version gives it as: And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. the alternative would read, And the message was embodied (made flesh) and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth. The “authorized” rendering of John 1:3-5 also strongly implies that the personified “Word” was the creator by translating the Greek word dia “by ” instead of “through.” Almost all later versions, including the RSV, NASV, ASV and NIV, correct this bias of the KJV and give it as “through.” However, most follow the error that is compound ed by translating egeneto (egeneto) — a form of the word ginomai (ginomai) — “made”, strongly implying in this context create when the basic meaning is “happen”! Wilson aptly comments on its use here as follows: “Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create, yet in most versions it is translated as though the word was ktizw (ktizo). 'The word appears fifty three times in John, and signifies to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted.”42 Reader, egeneto NEVER carries a “creation” meaning and is never translated such outside the four times rendered such in the first chapter of John (John 1:3,4, & 10) and in these cases the translators strongly suggest create by translating egeneto “made.” Are you beginning to understand the powerful influence of paradigm in the translation process? These men were brilliant scholars and certainly understood the English language and the nuances of word usage. It is easy to identify their bias in this example. I reiterate that it does not necessarily mean that their interpretation and theology was incorrect. It most assuredly shows, however, that their Trinitarian bias (coupled with their fear of King James whose many titles included “Defender of the Faith) “colored” their translation. If we agree that the proper translation of egeneto is “were done” — which fits this context — you have the makings of a whole new interpretation. Instead of the logoV “message” being the creator itself, it becomes the reason that the “all things” under discussion in this text were “done.” Therefore, the rendering Through it, all things were done. And without it nothing was done. could be interpreted as saying that God brought “all things” into focus historically through and on account of the pre-existent “message,” and his whole plan was conceived and purposed toward this end. The next verse identifies the goal of this “message” as “life.” What has been done in it was life. And the life was the light of humanity. This also explains verse one's description, “And 'God' the message was.” God was the source, inspiration, and accomplisher of this plan and the pre-existent and forthcoming “message” would direct mankind toward this truth. God was the content of the message. The great Revelator, omnipotent and omniscient One described by Paul as one who “… calls things that are not as though they are” (Rom. 4:17), would be declared and glorified by a uniquely prepared individual — the Anointed Jesus. In other words, instead of having the person of the “Anointed” pre-existing as God, you have the “message” of the “Anointed” pre-existing and “directed toward God.” This message is the same message spoken to Abraham and Moses. A good example of this distinction can be seen in Ephesians 1:4. Paul writes that Christians were “chosen in him (the Anointed Jesus) before the foundation of the world.” No one argues from this verse that Christians literally pre-existed but that the plan and purpose of God for their redemption pre-existed. If this is true concerning the believer (the goal of the message), couldn't it also be true regarding the “Anointed” (messenger) himself? If not, why not? Simply put, God had the believer in MIND before he existed so why could not the “Anointed” have existed only in God's MIND before it became flesh? In the author's opinion, this view makes much more sense than trying to explain Jesus as being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. In addition, this principle can be enjoined in all references to the pre-existence of the “Anointed” in the New Testament. Even the difficulty of making the switch from the neuter pronoun to the masculine in the first chapter of John is removed when you understand that Jesus of Nazareth was the “message” of God personified rather than “God personified”. So the it “message” was embodied in the “flesh” in verse 14. We didn't observe the message itself, but the GLORY of the message, viz the embodiment of the message: Jesus — a he. And the message was embodied and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth. This view also agrees with John's use of the neuter in introducing the subject of 1 John. Here, John also introduces Jesus from the standpoint of a neuter “message” rather than a person “he” Compare with me John 1:1-4 and 1 John 1:1-2. John 1:1-4 has: 1 In the beginning was the message, And the message was directed towards God, And “God” the message was. 2 The same one was directed towards God in the beginning. 3 Through it, all things were done. And without it nothing was done. 4 What has been done in it was life. And the life was the Light of humanity. In 1 John 1:1-2 he writes: 1 What was from the beginning, What we heard, What we saw with our eyes, What we observed and our hands felt Concerning the message of life. 2 And the life appeared, And we saw and are testifying and are declaring to you the life, the eternal life, which was directed toward the Father and which appeared to us. In 1 John 1:1-2, all scholars render the subject as neuter. Some translate it “that” instead of “what” but there is no difference in the meaning. John emphasizes that “what” they had seen and heard — their “hands felt”. When you think on it, a “what” would require substance of some sort in order to be heard, understood and felt, wouldn't it? And this is just what John is alluding to. Jesus, as the Anointed, was the embodiment of the “message” of “life” — the “message” that directed people towards the giver of life — the “Father”. This also agrees with the concept raised by Jesus in John 14:19. There Jesus taught Philip, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” Was he saying they had literally seen God? No one claims this is the case! If he did not intend it literally then how did he mean it? They had beheld the “message” of God personified in him — not God Himself! Isn't this what John was teaching in John 1:18? No one has ever seen God. The unique son, the one who is at the bosom of the Father, that one has related him. In the above verse, the word translated “related” is exhghsato (exegesato) and is translated “declare” by the KJV. It is the word we derive our English word exegesis. Vine defines it as: EXEGEOMAI (exhgeomai), lit., to lead out, signifies to make known, rehearse, declare… In John 1:18, in the sentence 'He hath declared Him,' the other meaning of the verb is in view, to unfold in teaching, to declare by making known. See Tell.43 Jesus, as the Anointed One, related to them everything that the “message” residing in him intended. Thus, through his life and teaching they had seen God — His character, His love, His desire for their deliverance and abundant life, etceteras. As they examined Jesus, they beheld the “life” of John 1:4. As they lived with him, listened to him and touched him, they “heard… saw … felt … the message of life.” Not only is this view more sensible and consistent, but it also makes the unique man Jesus even MORE compelling — if that is possible. This will be developed in detail before the end of this work.

Music4two

You can put your trust in men and their explanations of the scriptures all you want.

But the most original text that we have reveals the truth. Men for centurys have tried to destroy the evidence of the Deity of Christ and it still screams loudly in thier face. I suppose if they could they would destroy every bible in the world and rewright thier own!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote

Rather then continue in pointless debate on subjects of Greek language, I prefer to talk about the functionality of the Doctrine. Again I ask you what is the functionality of the Trinity, Dual nature of Christ or the interpretation of John 1 to be Christ. In what way do these concepts draw me cloaer to Christ or make it possible for me to be like Him?

M42

How can you draw closer to someone if you dont know who they are. If you are introduced to a dog then your relationship with that dog would not at all be on a human level!

[Worshipping Jesus]

m42

Are you a member of the Watch Tower?

[Is 1:18]

Hi David,
You believe Yahshua preexisted his incarnation, why is it that you never seem to want to enter the preexistence debates. Especially considering the evidence attesting to the preexistence is substantive (overwhelmingly so!), right?

Just curious.

Hope you are well BTW.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (music4two @ Nov. 25 2006,16:30)

I hope this answers some of your questions.

No. Not really.

[david]

Quote

Hi David, You believe Yahshua preexisted his incarnation, why is it that you never seem to want to enter the preexistence debates. Especially considering the evidence attesting to the preexistence is substantive (overwhelmingly so!), right? Just curious. Hope you are well BTW.

I tend to avoid the trinity discussions entirely as there are so many others that would say exactly what I say and can say it just as well.
T8 and Nick seem to believe exactly as I do in this for example. A few months ago, I did look back on your 3 part proof to me that God is a trinity. I spent quite some time disecting it, and tearing it apart. I never actually posted it. It's not that this topic bores me, as I am truly very interested in it, and have spent a lot of time discussing it with various people. There are a lot of other subjects on here I'm more interested in currently.

Quote

Especially considering the evidence attesting to the preexistence is substantive (overwhelmingly so!), right?

Perhaps it's so substansive I don't consider it worthy of discussion:???

[david]

OK, I've put all this down before, and I'm certain we have had this exact discussion before, but oh well:

COLOSSIANS 1:15,16

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?

(1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created.
If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

REVELATION 3:14
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe′] of God’s creation.”’”

(KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning.

PROVERBS 8:22
(I think there's another thread on here specifically devoted to this scripture. I'll find it.)

[david]

PROVERBS 8:22

Many Bible commentators agree, that at Prov 8:22, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”

“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago….Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains…When he prepared the heavens I was there; …then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I cam to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time,…and the things I was found of were with the sons of men.”
(Prov 8:22-31)

Could this passage merely be talking about divine wisdom or wisdom in the abstract?

The Wisdom that is here described was “produced,” or created, as the beginning of Jehovah’s way. Jehovah God has always existed and has always been wise. (Ps 90:1,2) His wisdom had no beginning; it was neither created nor produced.
It was “brought forth as with labor pains.” Furthermore, this wisdom is said to speak and act, representing a person. (Prov 8:1)

(T8, Some say that the holy spirit is spoken of in that manner and so the holy spirit must be an individual. Well, the same reasoning would apply to this scripture then.)

The fact that the Hebrew word for “wisdom” is always in the feminine gender does not conflict with the use of wisdom to represent God’s Son. The Greek word for “love” in the expression “God is love” is also in the feminine gender. (1 John 4:8) Yet, it is used to refer to God.

Depicting the Son of God as wisdom is appropriate, since was was God’s Word or spokesman and was the one who revealed Jehovah’s wise purposes and decrees. Elsewhere, he is described as being “the power of God and the wisdom of God,” and also the “wisdom from God.” (1 cor 1:24,30)

[david]

Jehovah is called a Father because he is the Creator. (Isaiah 64:8) Since Jesus was created by God, he is called God’s Son. For similar reasons, other spirit creatures and even the man Adam are called sons of God.—Job 1:6; Luke 3:38.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2006,23:28)

I tend to avoid the trinity discussions entirely as there are so many others that would say exactly what I say and can say it just as well. Quote Especially considering the evidence attesting to the preexistence is substantive (overwhelmingly so!), right? Perhaps it's so substansive I don't consider it worthy of discussion:???

Hi David,
I don't think you understood what I meant. You believe that Yahshua preexisted his incarnation (as do I and most others, although we disagree about what kind of being He was and is). The unitarians (Sammo, AP, WIT, RR, Elidad and M42) affirm that his existence began at his natural conception. So consequently, according to WT christological doctrine, they would have a false Jesus…..as their Jesus differs markedly from yours.

So given this, why have you never (as far as I can recall) disputed this falsehood David?

Quote

A few months ago, I did look back on your 3 part proof to me that God is a trinity.  I spent quite some time disecting it, and tearing it apart.

Tore it apart huh?….he he.
Well David you know I never shy away from lexical debates, especially when John 1:1 is the topic….

Blessings

[music4two]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 25 2006,19:03)

m42 Are you a member of the Watch Tower? Absolutely not!!!

Absolutely not!

[david]

Quote

Hi David, I don't think you understood what I meant. You believe that Yahshua preexisted his incarnation (as do I and most others, although we disagree about what kind of being He was and is). The unitarians (Sammo, AP, WIT, RR, Elidad and M42) affirm that his existence began at his natural conception. So consequently, according to WT christological doctrine, they would have a false Jesus…..as their Jesus differs markedly from yours. So given this, why have you never (as far as I can recall) disputed this falsehood David?

What is there to dispute?

He himself explicitly testified to the fact of his prehuman existence and to his having come down from heaven: “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” “Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.” “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.”—John 3:13; 6:51; 8:58; 17:5; Rev. 3:14. (Revised Standard Version)

His origin was “from early times, from the days of time indefinite,” says Micah 5:2.
“You, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.” (Micah 5:2)
Jesus himself said: “I am from the realms above”—that is, from heaven. (John 8:23) He had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.
On many occasions, Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. (John 3:13; 6:38, 62; 17:4, 5)
“When [Jehovah] prepared the heavens I was there.”—Proverbs 8:22,23,27
“Let us make man in our image,” he declared, “according to our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) Who was he speaking to?
I believe Jesus was called God’s “only-begotten Son” because Jehovah created him directly. (John 3:16)
And I believe the scriptures I posted in the posts above point to him pre-existing before his birth as a human, as flesh.

I don't know Is 1:18. I guess they haven't been very vocal about this belief or maybe I have been focused on other things. I believe there is too much scripture that supports his pre-existence for this to be in question.

But of course, now that I've said that, I'm sure some will show me what they consider to be the other side of the coin.

david

[Author]

Posts