- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 28 2011,03:33) Addendum: John said “in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God. John never said “and the logos is God.” The reason John could not say “the logos is God” is because the logos changed[1:14], God did not.
That must be considered in examining this issue.
Lets take John 1:14 The logos is not God, He is the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Now let me ask you first a question. What do you think it means in the bosom of the Father? Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham. So what does that mean?
Irene(Paladin)
Quote The reason John could not say “the logos is God” is because the logos changed[1:14], God did not. That must be considered in examining this issue.
(WJ) Hi Pallidin
But if the Logos was God and it changed then God changed right?
Only if they are convertible terms. Since they are not convertible, i.e., are not equal, are not identifiably the same, and one changes, the other does not. It is not even a case where the second term might change, it does not. The terms are not identical.
(WJ)
Quote Isn't Gods word ” immutable” like God (the Word was God)? Reference? His council and his oath are immutable, but nothing is recorded of that nature about his logos, that I can recall. And I don't find it in a cursory search.
The word translated “council” in several places is translated
“advised” in Acts 27:12. I think that is probably pretty close to the meaning of “boulee.”(WJ)
Quote Did the Word which was God change? Could it be that John is starting the prologue off by showing us the Word “Was” with God in the beginning and was God without flesh in the beginning but now the Word has come in the flesh and that Word is still the Word that never changes. The Word (Spirit) now living in the flesh. That looks too much like you have mixed and stirred the previous posts to get a desired result. I do not say that is what you are doing, only that it looks that way, and only to me.
Look WJ, anytime something is described, or defined, or settled into a particular meaning, then “becomes” something else, that original something has changed without effecting whether anything else changes or not. In this case, ho logos became,i.e., theos did not. It remained theos; ho logos became flesh.
But, when ho logos became flesh, it did not become forever and singularly flesh in such a way it ceased to be ho logos. That would require no more references to ho logos, but since we see many many references to ho logos, after ho logos is said to “become flesh” it cannot mean all that is ho logos became all that is flesh. It is referencing a personification.
That is the same argument made for ho logos was theos; i.e., not all that was ho logos was all that was theos. That is the significance of inconvertible terms.
(WJ)
Quote What did Jesus mean when he said… Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matt 24:35
You may be confusing God's words, with “the logos of God.” One is what God speaks, while the other is a title name for a particular concept developed and nurtured by God.
For example, you might say something about your family, like
“My house is devoted to God” And at the same time say “My house burned down last night.” No one hearing both statements will think you are speaking of the same house in both instances. God's logos cannot be corrupted, but “the logos of God” can be. “For we are not as many, which corrupt the logos of God:” [II Cor 2:17](WJ)
Quote If the “word” (logos) changes then what it was before it changed would have passed away, right? Not at all. When you change your shirt, does it fail to remain a shirt? You might make it a different color, add sleeves, remove sleeves, change the way the collar is displayed, many ways to alter a shirt without the shirt ceasing to be a shirt.
When you change your mind, does it cease to be your mind? When you mind becomes obstinate, or compliant, it is the same mind, altared in some subtle way to conform to the need of the moment.
When “ho logos” became flesh, it did not cease to be “ho logos” and “flesh” did not become a compound form, but it is a personification, similar to saying about your son (assuming here) “He is his father all over again.” We know that is not true, but we also know what is being said; i.e., he is the personification of our memory of his father.
Thanks for the input WJ. Sincerely, I hope this clears it up.
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 28 2011,06:53) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 28 2011,03:33) Addendum: John said “in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God. John never said “and the logos is God.” The reason John could not say “the logos is God” is because the logos changed[1:14], God did not.
That must be considered in examining this issue.
(I) Lets take John 1:14 The logos is not God, He is the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
o.k.Let's assume you have discovered a previously unknown verse that says “kai ho logos is ho huios theou” – Do you mind sharing the reference?
There is no such verse dear sister. And asserting its conclusion won't bring it to life.
(I)
Quote Now let me ask you first a question. What do you think it means in the bosom of the Father? Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham. So what does that mean?
IreneKinda like when you hold your grandchild on your lap; God holds his son, but with one subtle change, adults usually lean in toward the one they love, after they pass the childhood age. It can even be like when an adult holds a loved one laid accross his lap because he is too big to sit on his lap. I think you can see a resemblance, if not we can try again.
Grace and Hope to you and yours from me and mine
Hi Paladin,
Yay! Praise God! I can learn new things! Thanks Paladin. I am going to be reading scripture now with this new level of discernment and it's going to be wonderful. Muchos gracious amigos! Danke shone mein freund! Life is good.With Love and Respect,
WispringQuote (Wispring @ Mar. 28 2011,09:05) Hi Paladin,
Yay! Praise God! I can learn new things! Thanks Paladin. I am going to be reading scripture now with this new level of discernment and it's going to be wonderful. Muchos gracious amigos! Danke shone mein freund! Life is good.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
It makes me think of Paul's words as he defined for the saints as they also began to comprehend the deeper things of scripture and the spirit of the scriptures, compared with the letter of scripture:Watch as Paul tries to get the saints to think in terms of a new concept – “Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:”
Paul is telling them “don't just read the book, read the man” as he introduces a new concept to their minds.
“Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.Paul has just told them for the first time, what to look for when studying God's word; i.e., don't get tied up over the letters of the message, look to the spirit of truth behind the letters. In other words, a simple skimming over the wrods won't show you the deeper things contained in the message. you must go all the way to the spirit of the message.
Paul then compares glory of the old testament (letter of the law) to the new glory of the spirit of the law. Which one is the more glorious? ” But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”Paul explains how it is his words are plain, not expressing hidden knowledge, but boldly expressing the spiritual life of the saints in the everyday living, and compares it to looking in a mirror: “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” [II Cor 3:1-18]It is indeed a glorious thing to read and be able to see. First you read the book, then you read the man in whom the lessons of the book are tried. If he becomes a better man, he has read the book correctly, if not, he reads without understanding, and needs a Christian to read, for it is in the Christian, that the book makes sense, not in the reading, but in the living.
Oh, it is glorious and wondrous indeed.
Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 28 2011,07:51) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 28 2011,06:53) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 28 2011,03:33) Addendum: John said “in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God. John never said “and the logos is God.” The reason John could not say “the logos is God” is because the logos changed[1:14], God did not.
That must be considered in examining this issue.
(I) Lets take John 1:14 The logos is not God, He is the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
o.k.Let's assume you have discovered a previously unknown verse that says “kai ho logos is ho huios theou” – Do you mind sharing the reference?
There is no such verse dear sister. And asserting its conclusion won't bring it to life.
(I)
Quote Now let me ask you first a question. What do you think it means in the bosom of the Father? Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham. So what does that mean?
IreneKinda like when you hold your grandchild on your lap; God holds his son, but with one subtle change, adults usually lean in toward the one they love, after they pass the childhood age. It can even be like when an adult holds a loved one laid accross his lap because he is too big to sit on his lap. I think you can see a resemblance, if not we can try again.
Grace and Hope to you and yours from me and mine
Paladin! So what you are saying, if I got that right. john 1:14 is not there?John 1:14
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
King James Bible
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.American King James Version
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.American Standard Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.Douay-Rheims Bible
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.Darby Bible Translation
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth;English Revised Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.Webster's Bible Translation
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.World English Bible
The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.Young's Literal Translation
And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:14 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.I don't know Greek, but they do, and it is there…..
It was not Jehovah God that became flesh, Jesus God with usdid……
The Son of God, who by His Father was called God. Hebrew 1
I also gave you Rev. 19 as a reference that shows me that there is no other being that fits that description except Jesus.I could maybe go along with you on John 1:1 , because He is called The Word of God, which can be misleading at best. But since we have another Scripture in Rev. 19 :13-16 it explains it that The Word of God is Jesus, who will come again, and strike the nations with the wrath of God. Therefore I believe John 1 who BTW wrote Rev. too is Jesus…. Besides all of that we have other Scriptures, that say He was the firstborn of all creation.
Your explanation as what it means to be in the bosom of the Father, but then Lazarus was in Abraham's lap???
Peace and Love Irene Irene
Paladin……….Don't lose heart there are some here who are understanding what your saying in you posts brother. Some times you have to just say whosoever has ears to hear let him or she hear.
peace and love to you and yours brother……………………………………….gene
Hi Paladin,
Quote I am very much a novice Greek language translator, but, will try my hand. Quote “kai ho logos is ho huios theou”
and the word is the son God
You probably won't find this either.kai ho logo estin ho huiou tou theou
and the word is the son of the GodOK. my brain is sore from building new neural networking and am going to quit because I am not learned in the tenses of verbs,adverbs and the intricacies of the grammatical verbiage of Greek.
With Love and Respect,
WispringHi All,
Has anyone here read the Sheppard of Hermas and have an understanding of it?
In 'The Sheppard' (One of the most popular readings of the early church) it goes something like this;
Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the son.
Theres more to it than that though.Is this belief here similar to that in any way?
Just wondering. Thanks.
Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 28 2011,19:37) Hi All, Has anyone here read the Sheppard of Hermas and have an understanding of it?
In 'The Sheppard' (One of the most popular readings of the early church) it goes something like this;
Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the son.
Theres more to it than that though.Is this belief here similar to that in any way?
Just wondering. Thanks.
Hi! I just read some of it. One person who was in conflict with that believe is Quintus Septimus Florence Tertullian. He is the one who is known as bringing to light the trinity doctrine. Constantine went along with Him, and the trinity became the law of the first council of Nicaea in AD 325 It will take me a lot to read through all of what Sheppard of H. believed. Since you did, tell us did He believe in the preexisting or not. I do know that the trinatarian's believe that Jesus always existed, which I don't. There are scriptures that say Jesus was the firstborn of all creation….I really go more by Scriptures then what any men would teach. If it doesn't inline with the Bible I don't take it as truth….If He believed that Jesus was adopted as the Son, that alone is wrong according to Scripture. Jesus was not a mere man. At least that is what I believe Scriptures has taught me.Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
John 1:1 says in the beginning was The Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God. And verse 14 tells us that The Word became flesh. I am not certain what is meant by in the beginning. If it is the beginning of Jesus, or the time of all creation.
I am having a debate with Paladin about that point…… I believe verse 14 is in the origanal transcript…..Peace and Love Irene
Quote (Baker @ Mar. 28 2011,13:59) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 28 2011,07:51) Quote (Baker @ Mar. 28 2011,06:53) Quote (Paladin @ Mar. 28 2011,03:33) Addendum: John said “in the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God. John never said “and the logos is God.” The reason John could not say “the logos is God” is because the logos changed[1:14], God did not.
That must be considered in examining this issue.
(I) Lets take John 1:14 The logos is not God, He is the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
o.k.Let's assume you have discovered a previously unknown verse that says “kai ho logos is ho huios theou” – Do you mind sharing the reference?
There is no such verse dear sister. And asserting its conclusion won't bring it to life.
(I)
Quote Now let me ask you first a question. What do you think it means in the bosom of the Father? Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham. So what does that mean?
IreneKinda like when you hold your grandchild on your lap; God holds his son, but with one subtle change, adults usually lean in toward the one they love, after they pass the childhood age. It can even be like when an adult holds a loved one laid accross his lap because he is too big to sit on his lap. I think you can see a resemblance, if not we can try again.
Grace and Hope to you and yours from me and mine
Paladin! So what you are saying, if I got that right. john 1:14 is not there?John 1:14
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
King James Bible
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.American King James Version
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.American Standard Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.Douay-Rheims Bible
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.Darby Bible Translation
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth;English Revised Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.Webster's Bible Translation
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.World English Bible
The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.Young's Literal Translation
And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:14 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.I don't know Greek, but they do, and it is there…..
It was not Jehovah God that became flesh, Jesus God with usdid……
The Son of God, who by His Father was called God. Hebrew 1
I also gave you Rev. 19 as a reference that shows me that there is no other being that fits that description except Jesus.I could maybe go along with you on John 1:1 , because He is called The Word of God, which can be misleading at best. But since we have another Scripture in Rev. 19 :13-16 it explains it that The Word of God is Jesus, who will come again, and strike the nations with the wrath of God. Therefore I believe John 1 who BTW wrote Rev. too is Jesus…. Besides all of that we have other Scriptures, that say He was the firstborn of all creation.
Your explanation as what it means to be in the bosom of the Father, but then Lazarus was in Abraham's lap???
Peace and Love Irene Irene
No, dear sister, what I am saying is you continually respond to my exegesis of scripture, explanations of the grammar, and discussions of scriptural messages, with “no, wait, I have a doctrine, without which I am lost.”Not interested.
Quote (karmarie @ Mar. 28 2011,19:37) Hi All, Has anyone here read the Sheppard of Hermas and have an understanding of it?
In 'The Sheppard' (One of the most popular readings of the early church) it goes something like this;
Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the son.
Theres more to it than that though.Is this belief here similar to that in any way?
Just wondering. Thanks.
Hello Karmarie;
Never read it, can't comment on the similarity, but that is close to what scripture presents us with. Of course we must not forget he was, after all, “begotten by the spirit.” That has to change the concept somewhat.
Hi Irene,
The expression “In the bosom of Abraham” was used by the ancient Jewish folks to talk about those who had passed away. The writer was just taking this expression and applying it to Jesus. Simple. I am going to strongly reccomend you review your dialogue with Paladin and write things down on paper, discuss it with your husband. Pray to God about it. To be honest you have made him repeat himself a few times and you know how it is when we get older we don't like to keep repeating ourselves. Right? You need to wrap your mind around the concept that Jesus was the personification of the Logos(Word) not the Word itself. That verse in revelations is:
Quote Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
substitue “authority” for “name” and see how it makes sense. Like in the name of the law I order you to put down that weapon. In the name of all that is good please open your mind to new things. Stuff like that. If you are going to post the same verse from 20 different versions of the bible, KNOW, that Paladin uses KJV and Greek. So, it serves no purpose. Just say I have viewed 20 different versions of the bible and this is what I understand. When you are discussing and you don't agree or understand(thoughts are not clear in your mind) express it. Please don't post a bunch of scripture and say 'what about this' when you have not even reached a point where you agree to disagree previousley. This makes for unproductive communication. With all this said I still love you and I am sure Paladin does too. Re-Read your entire conversation with him and all the other posts as well is the best thing I can advise.With Love and Respect,
WisrpringQuote (Wispring @ Mar. 28 2011,23:43) Hi Irene,
The expression “In the bosom of Abraham” was used by the ancient Jewish folks to talk about those who had passed away. The writer was just taking this expression and applying it to Jesus. Simple. I am going to strongly reccomend you review your dialogue with Paladin and write things down on paper, discuss it with your husband. Pray to God about it. To be honest you have made him repeat himself a few times and you know how it is when we get older we don't like to keep repeating ourselves. Right? You need to wrap your mind around the concept that Jesus was the personification of the Logos(Word) not the Word itself. That verse in revelations is:
Quote Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
substitue “authority” for “name” and see how it makes sense. Like in the name of the law I order you to put down that weapon. In the name of all that is good please open your mind to new things. Stuff like that. If you are going to post the same verse from 20 different versions of the bible, KNOW, that Paladin uses KJV and Greek. So, it serves no purpose. Just say I have viewed 20 different versions of the bible and this is what I understand. When you are discussing and you don't agree or understand(thoughts are not clear in your mind) express it. Please don't post a bunch of scripture and say 'what about this' when you have not even reached a point where you agree to disagree previousley. This makes for unproductive communication. With all this said I still love you and I am sure Paladin does too. Re-Read your entire conversation with him and all the other posts as well is the best thing I can advise.With Love and Respect,
Wisrpring
That was much nicer than I in my frustration, voiced it.Thank you.
Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 28 2011,23:43) Hi Irene,
The expression “In the bosom of Abraham” was used by the ancient Jewish folks to talk about those who had passed away. The writer was just taking this expression and applying it to Jesus. Simple. I am going to strongly reccomend you review your dialogue with Paladin and write things down on paper, discuss it with your husband. Pray to God about it. To be honest you have made him repeat himself a few times and you know how it is when we get older we don't like to keep repeating ourselves. Right? You need to wrap your mind around the concept that Jesus was the personification of the Logos(Word) not the Word itself. That verse in revelations is:
Quote Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
substitue “authority” for “name” and see how it makes sense. Like in the name of the law I order you to put down that weapon. In the name of all that is good please open your mind to new things. Stuff like that. If you are going to post the same verse from 20 different versions of the bible, KNOW, that Paladin uses KJV and Greek. So, it serves no purpose. Just say I have viewed 20 different versions of the bible and this is what I understand. When you are discussing and you don't agree or understand(thoughts are not clear in your mind) express it. Please don't post a bunch of scripture and say 'what about this' when you have not even reached a point where you agree to disagree previousley. This makes for unproductive communication. With all this said I still love you and I am sure Paladin does too. Re-Read your entire conversation with him and all the other posts as well is the best thing I can advise.With Love and Respect,
Wisrpring
Hello again my dear friend.Please allow me to tweak your understanding just a point to the west.
Jesus is not the personification of the logos. When a saint understands, and modifies his behaviour to the point he can yield his life in flesh to conform to the pattern given in exam[ple by ourLord and saviout, Jesus will live in that body of flesh and guide it in righteousness.
THAT concept of “Christ in you” is not the same as “Jesus.” The concept is personified when the saint loses himself totally, (is immersed in) Jesus christ. It is the personification of a concpet, it is not a person.
Thank you for the many encouraging remarks you have made. I only wish I could live up to expectations.
Paladin and Wispring! Much of the time, I don't understand what you Paladin are trying to say. I know about the article, which the Greek does not have, also taken out of context, I know that. What I don't understand when I see a verse for instance in John 1:14 and Paladin says its not there. That is what prompted me to put all of the different versions down, plus the Greek. When I can compare two Scriptures like John 1:1 and Rev. 19 and Paladin does not agree, I don;t understand…
He tells me he doesn't know our believe of preexisting of none trinitarias, , yet does not approve that the Scriptures I gave or Mike or t8 do not say that Jesus preexisted. To us they show that.
Take this verse for instance you Paladin quoted..Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
I asked what He thought in the bossom of the Father meant. He said like He was on His lap something like that. If He was on His Fathers lap then He was there with His Father.
I also don't understand that You and Paladin don't think that in general John is talking about Jesus.
verse 13 tell us that He was not born of flesh nor of the will of men, but of God.
That shows that He was born of Spirit, since God is Spirit. And then the next verse it shows that He became flesh.Quote (Baker @ Mar. 29 2011,05:09) What I don't understand when I see a verse for instance in John 1:14 and Paladin says its not there. That is what prompted me to put all of the different versions down, plus the Greek. Dear sister; forgive my foolish impatience. I should have understood that I have not adequately explained the issue for you. The fault is mine. I will try again.
There is a very real issue totally obscured in many debates about these things, but very important to observe, which I know you have heard befroe, and probably said to others, and that is “know who is doing the speaking, to whom they are speaking, and about what they are speaking.” That is very good advice, but with the written account, at least two more things are paraqmount to understanding; “When was it written and what is the time being written about.”
And example is found in John 1:18 – john is writing about an event that is current when he writes the account; in other words, John is writing about current events of 96 a.d; because he wrote his gospel in 96 a.;d., and used present tense active verbs, one of which is here in John 1:18; “Is in the bosom of the Father.” John is not talking about a pre-existant Jesus here, he is talking about a fact of circumstance in his own day. He is speaking aobut the resurrected, ascended Jesus who is at God's right hand, being
“in the bosom of the Father;” as Wispering has pointed out accurately.Another place this mistake is made (not acknowledging the difference between “was” and “is”) is in John 1:1 where John uses “een” = “was” as contrasted with “eimi” = is.” When John says “in the beginning was ho logos, and ho logos was with ton theon, and ho logos was theos.” John avoids saying “the logos is God” by using “was” insted of “is.” Had John said “ho logos is theos,” it would have been a whole different statement entirely, just as it would had John said ho logos is ho theos.
I have not adequately presented this issue, and for that I apologize. John did not say “Jesus was in the bosom of the father,” which could be mistaken for an account of a pre-existant Jesus, if other needed statements were in evidence to demonstrate that as a fact. But John used “is,” a present active verb. It therefore cannot be used as a proof-text for the pre-existance of Jesus. It can only be used to show that at the time John is writing his gospel, Jesus is in the bosom of the Father. Part of the problem is due to the fact we are talking about past events, but have to speak of them as though they are presently occuring, to properly demonstrate the issues raised by prepositions, verbs, and pronouns.
(I)
Quote When I can compare two Scriptures like John 1:1 and Rev. 19 and Paladin does not agree, I don;t understand…
He tells me he doesn't know our believe of preexisting of none trinitarias, , yet does not approve that the Scriptures I gave or Mike or t8 do not say that Jesus preexisted. To us they show that.o.k. Again dear sister, look at the timing of things. In 48 a.d. Paul introduced a concept no one had ever heard of, when he said “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]
“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]
What Paul is talking about is a new concept not considered by the saints before this time, i.e, 48 a.d.
In 55 a.d. Paul wrote: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5]
In 60 a.d. Paul wrote that he had preached to the whole world: “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:” [Col 1:23-24]
And that he was given a mission to “fully preach' (fulfill) the 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[/v]; 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]
In 69 a.d. John tells us of a new (kainon) name which is to be given to resurrected Jesus: “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 [onoma kainon] new name.” [Rev 3:12] [That word
“kainon” means “New, not previously known”]But John does not leave it there, he mentionsit again later in his book “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 [Word] of God.” [Rev 19:12-13]
Anyone who reads verse twelve and thirteen together should be able to discern that John is telling us in verse 13, what he is introducing in verse 12. “He had a name written that no man knew” verifies what was previously said in 3:12, “my new name.” Then John goes on to tell us “and his name is called the logos of God.”
That word “called” is a verb written in the perfect passive, which means it is completed when John writes it, what was once only promise and prophecy, is now completed in the telling. His new name is called “the logos of God.” There is no more mystery about what his new name is going to be, because by telling us “his name is called” he forever removes the mystery, and the promise, and the doubt.
In 85 a.d. John wrote: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:” [In this verse John uses (eleeluthota perfect active accusative masculine singular form of the verb participle erxomai) The use of the perfect active participle is to show the continuing result in an active way, of Christ coming in flesh of the saints; i.e., the personification of the logos of God.
This is not talking about when Jesus roamed the streets of Holy Land, but rather when he “lives in me, in my flesh” as Paul related to us way back in 48 a.d, in Gal 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 I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
John repeats his statement but this time uses a different verb, to show that the effects of Christ living in our flesh carries long lasting consequences – “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” II John 7][This time john uses (erxomenon present middle or pass deponent accusative masculine singular form of verb participle erxomai) to show the ongoing effect of Christ in flesh as saints give over control of
their life to Jesus.(I)
Quote Take this verse for instance you Paladin quoted.. Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
I asked what He thought in the bossom of the Father meant. He said like He was on His lap something like that. If He was on His Fathers lap then He was there with His Father.
I also don't understand that You and Paladin don't think that in general John is talking about Jesus.Because the verb means Jesus is in the bosom of the father at the time John is writing about it, 96 a.d., not pre-existant Jesus prior to creation.
(I)
Quote verse 13 tell us that He was not born of flesh nor of the will of men, but of God. Verse twelve tells us who it is that were born of God in verse 13 – “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Once more dear sister, you have been the victim of a belief system that selects out verses from contexts that have no bearing on the issue being defeded, but when put with the other verses in context, are telling a far different story.
I can see where you get a pre-existant Jesus when you take verse, 1,13,14,18, but fail to see what they are really talking about.
(I)
Quote That shows that He was born of Spirit, since God is Spirit. And then the next verse it shows that He became flesh. Actually, dear sister, you are taking information youlearn elsewhere, and mixing it where it is not talking about the same thing, simply because the same kind of languag eis being used. We learn of Jesus being born of spirit way over in Mathew 1:20. But John 1:13 is not talking about Jesus, but is talking about believers who accept Jesus and are born again into the new and living way.
I hope this helps dear sister.
If John 1:18 is after Jesus resurrection, then what about John 17:5? Here Jesus is asking His Father that He wants the glory again, which He had with Him before the world was….i think we all know that He is a Spirit now. That then shows me that is what He was before the World was….What about that?
Peace IreneHi Paladin,
Quote Jesus is not the personification of the logos.
So, more precisely, the logos is personified in Jesus. When a saint relenquishes his/her life pattern to Jesus's life pattern this makes:Quote Mark 8:35 (King James Version) 35For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Quote John 14:23 (King James Version) 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
a spiritual reality for the saint.
I understand, brother, your tweaking of my understanding as correction of splitting the Logos as it were and appreciate your advise in that respect.With Love and Respect,
Wispring
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
