Examination of the incarnation doctrine.

Participant

Quote (942767 @ April 12 2011,08:05)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,12:12)

Hi Numbers,
Marty,
Than again the Scriptures literally state that the word was “made flesh”

That now we KNOW HIM, and he dwelled amoung men.

This is talking about an individual and not a situation where the word of God came to men.

God talks about knowing him, not by what is exactly written.

Jesus said they search the scriptures for eternal life, yet the scriptuers speak of HIM.

Hi SF:

Of course this is speaking of Jesus, but the Logos became flesh. The coming of the Messiah had been prophesied throughout the Old Testament beginning with Genesis 3:15.

Love in Christ,
Marty

So numbers,
what is your arguement exactly?

April 12, 2011 at 3:20 am#242892

942767

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2011,14:12)

Quote (942767 @ April 10 2011,20:59)

Hi:

Paladin stated and I agree that:

Quote

Jesus is not the logos of God. “The logos of God” is not a person

That is to say that the Logos of God is not a sentient person, but comes from Almighty God. Therefore, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

This defines God's plan to make man in His own image by His Word as man learns to put that Word into practice in His daily living, that is the man's spirit is formed through obedience to God's Word, and thus reflecting God's character.

The first man was made a living soul, like God in that he has a mind, a will and emotions.

The scriptures state that Jesus is the express image of God's person, but he was not that at his birth. He was born as an infant into this world, a man child, a living soul with a mind a will and emotions, and at the age of 12 we see him discussing the scriptures with the scribes, and the scriptures state that grew in wisdom, and stature and in favor with God and man, and at the age of 30, he received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and we hear God saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”.

And the scriptures state, that though he were a Son of God, he humbled himself and became obedient even unto death on the cross, and the scriptures state that he was confirmed to be the Son of God through the spirit of holiness.

He is the last Adam, the culmination of God's plan for humanity. The scriptures state that God made all things by him and for him, and without him was nothing made that was made. He is the basis for the whole of creation, but he is not the creator.

The following scripture which sister Irene uses to promote the pre-existence of Jesus states:

Quote

Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

This states that: “his name is called The Word of God”, and not that “he is called “The Word of God”. When the scripture states “his name is called”, it referring to his character and his authority as the head of the church, and the judge of the living and the dead. This what he has become through the perfect obedience to God's Word.

I also would like to point out the following scripture:

Quote

1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Love in Christ,
Marty

Marty

do you ever ask yourself if God in the beginning was alone he would not need words or a communicator but then start to create ,so just before he start to create ,We know he is spirit,right ,so invisible right ,but is first creation would be the “communicator” to all other creation ,no??

and would be also made something less spirit with some other abilities to bring forth a different creation ,no??

is this not what we see in all of creation,?

Christ is and always as been the in between being ,from God to creation.

Pierre

Hi Pierre:

I am not sure I am understanding your question or questions.

The Spirit of Christ was with God in the beginning, but God was not alone when he created man. The angels were there with Him. And so, God says to them: LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE By saying “make man in our image” that denotes a progression in the man being made by God, and this is done as the Word of God or the Spirit of Christ comes to man through angels or messengers.

But we are getting off Topic here and so, I won't elaborate further.

Love in Christ,
Marty

April 12, 2011 at 3:41 am#242896

terraricca

Participant

Quote (942767 @ April 12 2011,21:20)

Quote (terraricca @ April 10 2011,14:12)

Quote (942767 @ April 10 2011,20:59)

Hi:

Paladin stated and I agree that:

Quote

Jesus is not the logos of God. “The logos of God” is not a person

That is to say that the Logos of God is not a sentient person, but comes from Almighty God. Therefore, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

The first man was made a living soul, like God in that he has a mind, a will and emotions.

The following scripture which sister Irene uses to promote the pre-existence of Jesus states:

Quote

Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

I also would like to point out the following scripture:

Quote

1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Love in Christ,
Marty

Marty

and would be also made something less spirit with some other abilities to bring forth a different creation ,no??

is this not what we see in all of creation,?

Christ is and always as been the in between being ,from God to creation.

Pierre

Hi Pierre:

I am not sure I am understanding your question or questions.

But we are getting off Topic here and so, I won't elaborate further.

Love in Christ,
Marty

Marty

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

to me in this scripture it says that God created the heaven and the earth right,but this is not the transformation of the earth and heaven ,but the heaven as we can see meaning stars and galaxies ,and the earth was part of that ,
THE EARTH IS NOT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION.

then it goes on and says ;Ge 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

this was the condition of the earth before its transformation for men ,

and so the WORD (CHRIST) of God was create way before the start ,because they were create trough him,

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together

Pierre

April 12, 2011 at 5:06 am#242905

Participant

Irene.

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with Elohim.

So let Elohim = Unity of the Spirit as taught in Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 4
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

So it would be In the beginning the Logos existed and the Logos was the Unity of the Spirit and the Logos was with the Unity of the Spirit.

The account of old Creation agrees with that as the Elohim spoke the Word and Creation came to be. Going by that understanding Logos would mean “decree”

To it would now become in the beginning the Decree of God existed and the Decree was the Unity of the Spirit and the Decree was with the Unity of the Spirit.

Using the same understand.

Jhn 1:14 ¶

Becomes “And the Decree 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.”

This is only one of many possible interpretations that can be arrived at using scripture and word meanings. That is why I told Mike it is not a proof scripture.

Specific Scriptures are best handled in the Biblical/Scriptural forum so I will not address them here. If you wish to discuss the meaning of each scripture then please start a thread on that scripture in the Biblical Scriptural forum. Thank you.

April 12, 2011 at 5:08 am#242906

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,06:36)

Kerwin,
Also, Hebrews 4:12 says the “Word of God is living”
Therefore to state that the bible is the exact word of God would be an error.
So i would have to agree with mike on this one

mY two cents

I have seen the scripture you refer to interpreted to mean scripture.

April 12, 2011 at 5:12 am#242908

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2011,06:30)

Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2011,03:08)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2011,07:27)

Quote (kerwin @ April 09 2011,15:31)

I am convinced that the can be more than one person or thing called The Word of God as after all my bible is The Word of God and yet it is not Jesus.

And what is your reason for thinking the Word who became flesh, dwelled among us, and had the glory of an only begotten Son from the Father is not the same Jesus who is the only begotten Son of the Father and the Word of God in Revelation?

I was pointing out that Just because the clause “Word of God” is speaking of Jesus does not mean it is in another.

John expects his readers to know what he is speaking of and thus the passage has unwritten context. It therefore renders the passage of little use as a proof text.

The unwritten context that seems to fit is the Jewish belief that the Word of God rules the angels and the Spirit of God is that Word. It could also be as Marty states.

Okay Kerwin,

1. Do you have scriptural support for the “Word of God” being the “Spirit of God”?

2. What era was the Jewish belief you mentioned instituted? Was it after the Messiah they would not recognize came?

3. Why are you willing to accept every possibility under the sun EXCEPT for the possibility that the “Word of God” in Revelation was the same “Word” that became flesh in 1:14? In other words, what FLAW do you even find with our understanding that the Word in 1:14 was the same Jesus who was the Word in Rev?

mike

It is an belief “that I heard was” expressed by Philo of Alexander who lived and wrote at the same period of time that the New Testiment occured and was written down.

I do not believe this is the place to go into explaining how my doctrine comes from scripture. I just feel pointing out that John 1 is to vague to be a logically sound and valid proof scripture.

Note:Edited to add “”that I heard was” to render my post more accurate.

April 12, 2011 at 5:14 am#242909

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ April 12 2011,10:08)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,06:36)

Kerwin,
Also, Hebrews 4:12 says the “Word of God is living”
Therefore to state that the bible is the exact word of God would be an error.
So i would have to agree with mike on this one

mY two cents

I have seen the scripture you refer to interpreted to mean scripture.

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

so scripture framed the worlds?

April 12, 2011 at 5:20 am#242912

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,11:14)

Quote (kerwin @ April 12 2011,10:08)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,06:36)

Kerwin,
Also, Hebrews 4:12 says the “Word of God is living”
Therefore to state that the bible is the exact word of God would be an error.
So i would have to agree with mike on this one

mY two cents

I have seen the scripture you refer to interpreted to mean scripture.

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

so scripture framed the worlds?

Is Scripture the Word of God?

April 12, 2011 at 5:24 am#242914

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ April 12 2011,10:20)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,11:14)

Quote (kerwin @ April 12 2011,10:08)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,06:36)

Kerwin,
Also, Hebrews 4:12 says the “Word of God is living”
Therefore to state that the bible is the exact word of God would be an error.
So i would have to agree with mike on this one

mY two cents

I have seen the scripture you refer to interpreted to mean scripture.

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

so scripture framed the worlds?

Is Scripture the Word of God?

Why dont you answer my question first, since that would be more gentleman like of you.

April 12, 2011 at 5:30 am#242915

Participant

Philo and Plato
Philo was similar to Plato in his thinking by making a distinction between the material world and the ideal world of eternal forms. But he took the important steps of interpreting Plato's eternal forms as being the very thoughts of God Himself, whereas Plato had left any hope of relationship between God and the ideal world somewhat uncertain.16

Dodd notes that as well as Philo's logos doctrine, there are also many other similarities with Johns gospel throughout.17 For example, both use the word 'light' as a symbol of deity (John 1:9, 8:12. c.f. De Somn 1:75). Also symbolized is the idea that God is the fountain from which all life streams (John 5:24-26 c.f. De Somn I1:245).18 Although the similarities between John and Philo are undoubtedly remarkable, there is no evidence that John was directly influenced by his writings.19 But it is certainly plausible that John's use of a familiar Greek philosophy was in mind. The evangelist assumes that when he used the word 'Logos',20 his readers would understand its meaning in different ways. This is clearly seen in view of the fact that the prologue does not explain the meaning of the word.21

Philo also differed from John in his use of logos in a number of ways. Philo believed that God's involvement with the world came through the means of a number of intermediary beings of which the greatest was the logos.22 Nash points out the lack of consistency in the way Philo uses the logos. Sometimes he applies it exclusively, but at other times he uses it to refer to any of several mediators, as well as describing a principle subordinate to God.23 Harris notes how Philo's logos tends to lack “the full personality and explicit pre-existence” that is evident in John (1:1, 14, 8:58).24 Probably the most obvious difference was that Philo reasoned that the logos could be called a second god, something that was far removed from John's Jewish/Christian monotheistic background.25

Before Philo, the Old Testament already had a theology of the word (dabar) of God. This word of Yahweh was of the supreme importance to the Jewish people because it represented a force or divine power that went fourth to accomplish His will (Ps. 33:9, Isa. 55:11).26 This word was active in the creation and ordering of the universe (Ps. 33:6 c.f. Gen. 1:3). This same word was also seen as having a significant function in the work of the prophets as they proclaimed God's revelation and warned of coming judgment ( Jer. 2:1).27 Dodd observes that in Hebrew thinking, there was a tendency to ascribe an existence to the word of God that would lead an individual to view it as having a substantive existence and activity of its very own.28 This expression of Yahweh's word is in accordance with the emphasis that the Jews would place on will and action as being an essential manifestation of life.29

………..
Concept of Logos according to John:

Despite all of these possibilities as to a background, or influence in Johannine thought, it is evident that John's concept of the Logos was unique. He moves beyond Hellenistic and Jewish speculations by identifying the Logos with Jesus of Nazareth.40 However, the Prologue of the Gospel is not so concerned with the earthly origins of Jesus, but with His heavenly pre-existence as the transcendent Logos, which is seen in view of the fact that the title does not occur as Christolgical designation in the rest of the Gospel.41

In John 1:1, the Logos is not merely seen as a thought, or wisdom, or a Gnostic demi-urge, but as God Himself (c.f. v. 18, 20:28). Barrett observes how the whole of John's Gospel is to be read in the light of this opening verse to introduce the reader to the reality of the words and deeds of Jesus as being the words and deeds of God Himself.42 Barrett also recognizes that if Jesus is not God, the entire Fourth Gospel would have to be dismissed as blasphemous.43

Because of the absence of the definite article in the Greek text of John 1:1, some have argued that the text should be translated 'a god', and not 'the' God (most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses). With regards to this, Michaels correctly notes that there are good reasons why Word has the definite article and God does not: “To indicate that the Word is the subject of the clause, even though in Greek it follows the verb to be (i.e., “…the Word was God” and not 'God was the Word')”44 It should also be observed that the evangelist intended to distinguish the Word from the Father, although both are God and share the same nature and attributes.45 Even liberal scholars, like Bultmann, strongly reject any polytheistic translation of John 1:1 and recognizes that the status of the Logos is one of equality with God.46

Verse 2 of the prologue emphasizes the eternal nature of the Logos, and with the appearance of the Greek word 'egeneto' in v. 3, prominence is then given to the role that the Logos has in creation (c.f. Col. 1:15-20). It is evident that all of creation bears the impression of God's Word, and is clearly discerned by humanity (Rom. 1:19, 20). Moreover, this role of creation means that Jesus has the right of ownership to it, but as v.v. 10, 11 state, this ownership is rejected.47 The full revelation of God's grace is seen in the climax of the prologue where the Logos takes on flesh and pitches his tent amongst humanity (v. 14).48 The incarnation of the Logos drew a tangible distinction between all previous Logos philosophy, declaring that the Son of God was made flesh. In the light of this verse, the Johannine concept of the Logos stands unique in the historical person of Jesus, providing the ultimate possibility for the salvation of humanity.49

There can be no doubt that the Logos was a familiar concept meaning different things for different people; having a rich philosophical background in Hellenistic and Jewish thinking. Knowing this, the Evangelist startles those familiar with the word when he proclaims how this Logos took on flesh and became incarnate in the historical person of Jesus Christ, to bring redemption to the world.
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/logos.htm

April 12, 2011 at 6:50 am#242919

Wispring

Participant

Hi SF,
That was an informative article. I went and read the article in it's entirety. This part you inserted:

Quote

Concept of Logos according to John:

Should read the Concept of Logos according to Barret's understanding of the book of John. Because in context that is what it is. The text you inserted isn't in the original article.
The web-site this is posted on is run by a man who holds the doctrine of the diety of Jesus and the triune godhead to be the gospel truth; much like the pathoftruth.com folks; much like the Roman Catholic Church. As such this article reflects this strongly held belief. Nevertheless, It is still an informative article. Thank you for sharing it.

With Love and Respect,
Wispring

April 12, 2011 at 9:12 am#242925

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2011,02:12)

Hey Marty, Gene and Paladin,

Is it your contention that the Word of God proceeds directly from God to each of us who accept it, and it then works at forming us into something that is closer to the image of God Himself?

You're understanding me wrong!
We were created in the image of God

Quote

Is it your contention that this Word of God, which is not a sentient being, can come into us the same way it came into Jesus?

First of all, Mike, nothing I post is my “contention.” it is my position. And I defend a position, I do not contend for a contention. I am not contentious, I am adamant about my position.

Second Mike, We are told to “study to show yourselves approved unto God…” which is not a reference to bookstudy,though that may be included, but rather is a reference to being a student of being approved unto God.

Paul has already been telling the saints how to improve in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in favour; but some of the saints hae become divided; i.e., some say “I am of Paul;” some say “I am of Apolis;” Some say “I am of Cephas;” Some say “I am of Christ.” Some speak in order to bring a knowledge of the saving Christ to the lost; some speak of contention hoping to cause grief to Paul.

How does the word of God come into each of us? (If I understand you question correctly) The word of God comes into each of us in direct proportion to how we apply ourselvs to imitating Christ as he is portrayed in those words of God.

Some of us will gladly receive God's words, and try to emulate Christ in our life, but only as long as things seem to go our way, and at the first sign of adversity, fall back to an earlier easier time of life.

Some will take in the word of God, and nurture it, and care for it, and learn of what it teaches. Still others will have to have a man to teach them all over again what Jesus already taught them.

The variety of ways the word of God can come into a man are as varied as men themselves.

That is my position.

Excellent question.

April 12, 2011 at 9:20 am#242927

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2011,14:21)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 10 2011,19:44)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 11 2011,02:12)

Hey Marty, Gene and Paladin,

Is it your contention that the Word of God proceeds directly from God to each of us who accept it, and it then works at forming us into something that is closer to the image of God Himself? Is it your contention that this Word of God, which is not a sentient being, can come into us the same way it came into Jesus?

Or am I understanding you wrong?

mike

Mike…………That is the way i see it brother. I believe God is very much active and present (IN) his words. “THE words i am telling you are spirit and are life. Just that simple Mike. IMO

peace and love………………………………….gene

Okay Gene,

That's how I was understanding it. But tell me why we even need Jesus then.

mike

Jesus came to save us from ourselves Mike.

Just as Paul tells us the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life, so Jesus came not to tell us aobut God, but to show us, by his life.

Paul never sent a letter to an unbeliever. He sent them a saint, and said “Here is Christ, read him.” (Not quoting Jesus, offering a sample of how it was done)

The saints are to express the living son of God in their own lives, so that otheres seeing their example, will want what they have, and that should always be “Christ living in me.”

And when they see “Christ living in me” they will once again
“behold the glory, as of the only begotten son of God,” Which is precisely why we need Jesus. He showed us the “new and living way” by being a living example for us to follow.

He did not say to us “You should was the disciples feet.” Instead, he girded himself, and washed the disciples feet, then said to us “What I have done, you should do to one another.

That is why we need Jesus.

April 12, 2011 at 9:40 am#242929

Participant

Quote (Baker @ April 11 2011,14:38)

Quote (Paladin @ April 08 2011,16:04)

Quote (Baker @ April 08 2011,09:58)

Paladin! I talked to Georg who is very knowledgeable in Scriptures. I hope I can explain to you what Paul really means. First of all there is no contradiction. 1 Corinth. 15 talks about the resurrection.

But dear sister, Jesus did not “become a man” in John 1:14. Do you see “Ieesous” anywhere in the verse? The only reason there is even a mention of Jesus at all in John's first chapter, is because John tied his gospel [96 a.d.] to the person of Christ in [69 a.d.] revelation 3:12 and in 19:12-13 with reference to the new name he is to be given, as “the logos of God.”

Jesus was not “the logos of God” in 30 a.d; He was not “The logos of God” in 33 a.d. when he was ascended. and he was not “the Logos of God” in 69 a.d., when John prophecies about his gift-name.

John is speaking in 1:14 about an event in the life of a personification, and recalling his remarks he wrote in 69 a.d, about Jesus, here ties the two events together. But the personification of the logos of God takes place, according to Paul, everytime some saint or other, so lives hi slife that he can say “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]

When this saint aknowledges “Christ Jesus” in his life, the logos of God is personified in the life of that saint. And “we behold the glory as of the only begotten son of God” all over again, in that saint, through Christ living in him.

And neither you nor George has yet explained how it is Adam predated Christ, other than to claim he pre-existed Abraham, and became flesh in John 1:14, which John does not say.

And to claim Christ pre-existent, AND incarnated, defies scripture; and denies everything Paul had to say about “Christ living in me” whichis the personification clearly referenced in John 1:14.

Paul spent a lifetime convincing the saints about this subject of “Jesus Christ living in me” and said, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]

Paul told the saints in Corinth [55 a.d.] “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]

And in 60 a.d, Paul explains about a mystery, now revealed, named “The Logos Of God” and what it is – ” 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:
25 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; 6 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 1:23-27]

Now, dear sister, if you will follow the clues provided in the underlined and bolded words, you will see a pattern found only in Paul's preahcing, which later is picked up by John who explains Paul's understanding of “The Logos Of God” and ties it to Jesus, not at Jesus' birth, but to “Jesus Christ lives in you” and John explains why it is “the hope of Glory” excpressed by Paul, as John expresses in 1:14 “we beheld his glory, as of an only begotten son of God”

Do you know the reason John uses [&# 969;&# 962;] in 1:14? Why does John speak of “Glory AS OF…” instead of saying “We beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten son of God?” Because John is not speaking of Jesus, he is speaking of the saint in whom Jesus is dwelling, “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten son of God” precisel;y because it is not Jesus of whom he speaks, but the saint in whom Jesus is dwelling in 96 a.d, when John is writing of the event.

Quote

Jhn 1:14 ¶ 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.

Jhn 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Right! In 96 a.d., John, the brother of Jesus, is writing about way back in 30 a.d, John the Baptist bore witness of the Christ, “the only begotten of the father”. He is not saying Jesus is the logos, he is saying the glory of one who has Christ living in him, shows the glory as of the only begotten of the father, of whom John bore witness.

John has John the baptist saying “this was he of whom I spake” rather than “this is he of whom I spake,” because John is speaking of a past event, not telling his gospel in the present.

John uses [&# 951;&# 957;] which is imperfect indicative, used twice in the verse; “this was he…” and “He was before me.

You really need to pay attention to the verbs dear sister. And I would appeal to George to learn this also, as he is teaching you, as well he should. This is why I did not prefer to post to you without George, because he might underswtand it differently if he sees it for himself, rather than getting it from you second hand. And this is not any kind of denouncement of either you or George, it is simply a fact of life. No one tells a fact nearly as well as one can read for one's self. It is much easier to appeal to George through the posting screen, than through another's eyes.

Quote

We should also look at Rev. 19 that explains to us that The Word of God is the one that became Jesus. So many just don't want to believe it.

Because that is not what happened dear sister.
My grandson, at birth, received a name; that name was
“Christian,” And he received the name “Christian” which was his name and still is, and when he was baptized into Christ, he received another name altogether, and that name was
“Christian,” because now, he belongs to Christ.

“The word of God is the one who became Jesus” is wrong. Jesus received a name, “The logos of God” but it was not who and what he was; it was a name recieved. Just as my grandson “Christian” was not “a Christian” until he accepted, obeyed, and became “a Christian.” He was already “Christian” when he became “a Christian.”

Jesus was already a man ascended to God's right hand when he received a name “The Logos Of God.” He was already “Jesus” and wa
s already dead and resurrected, when he received this name “The Logos Of God.”

Quote

I have asked so many times ir there is another being that fits that description.

I know, dear sister, because I have responded so many times.

Quote

Do you believe it is Jesus who will come again as The Word of God?

When I see my Grandson,
am I looking at “Christian” or “a Christian?” Both are names, one given at his birth, the other given at his birth into Christ.

Quote

Also God, The Word of God are all titles….
With all these Scriptures, there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus Yeshua who was with His Father Almighty God before the world was.. ( John 17:5)

Sorry Paladin, we're not on the same page. I hope that God shows us all the truth. I will again ask God for wisdom. BTW I did so before I explained to you 1 Corinth, 15, and I am certain that if I am wrong God will show me so……
Peace and Love Irene

But dear sister, that is what he sent me to the board to do, and you hang onto doctrines instead of truth. If you turn loose from doctrines and cling to Paul's own teaching, verified by John, you will see it. Watch for Paul's words “Christ living in you” throughout Paul's writings and try to explain them any other way. I will be waiting to hear from you.

Go in grace and in hope of glory as you allow “Christ Jesus to live in you,” so others can “behold his glory as of an only begotten son of God.”

Quote

Paladin! This is were you said to me that John 1:14 is not Jesus becoming flesh…..sorry I thought you said it was not in the lexi, which BTW it isn't…. but it is in the Greek.
I do believe that Jesus became flesh in verse 14. I believe it is Jesus in both scriptures in John 1 and Rev. 19…..
Peace and Love irene

Hello dear sister;

If you brought your car to me to be repaired, and I begin at the back of the book on how to rebuild a motor, when you come back to pick up your car, you will find it in a thousand pioeces and wonder what in the world I was thinking. You know as well as I do that when reading instrutions how to build or rebuild something, you do not go the the back of the book to begin, and work forward, correcting as you go, based upon what you already read at the back of the book.

No, dear sister, we both know that you must begin, (say it with me) at the beginning, that's right dear sister, and if you understand the necessity of beginning at the beginning of the book that instructs us how to build or rebuild an engine, why would you begin at the back of the bible, the only book ever written for the express purpose of telling us how to build a life dedicated to service to God and to our fellow man?

Paul warned again and again about certain brethren who crept in among brethren to deceive in order to gain followers fro themselves. Now, please, do not try to pick someone on the board and say I am accusing anyone here of infiltrating and trying to gain followers. I do not believ eit. but I do believe it has been done in every denomination among men. That is why there are denominations.

Men drew away other men by tantalizing them with new and different doctrines, or a new and different way to say the old doctrines. We are told that our doctrine is supposed to be the scriptures. We do not need catechisms, creeds, or doctrines,
to learn how to become approved unto God; all we need is the scriptures, and begin at the beginning, and read through to the natural ending; and the natural ending to this God-given book of instructions known to us all as the bible, ends with the book of the gospel of John.

You cannot possibly understand what God is saying if you begin at the back of the book, and modify everything you read by what John tells you about the logos of God. It has already been defined by both Paul and John over a period of time lasting from the beginning of the gospel of Jesus, through the writing of John's gospel. 30 a.d. to 96 a.d., a period of well over sixty years.

That is the very reason the ECF began to move the manuscripts around to begin with. To gain followers after themselves, and all the manuscript collections now has Mather, Mark, Luke, and John at the front of the list, and none of them belong there. They are out of order. And that is why any doctrines based upon the manuscript placing, will also be out of order.

April 12, 2011 at 9:54 am#242932

Participant

Dennison,

You wrote:

Quote

Why dont you answer my question first, since that would be more gentleman like of you.

I sometimes answer questions with question to get the other party to think for themselves.

For instance “Why is the bible called the word of God if it is not the Word of God” that by which the old creation occured?

Why is Jesus called the Word of God in Revelations 19?

Why is the Logos the Elohim?

Why is the Logos with Elohim?

As to my answer to the first question the bible is the word of God but not the Word by which the old creation came to be. In other words it is just what I told Mike,

One person or thing that qualifies as the word of God doe not necessarilly replace the clause word of God in another scripture.

April 12, 2011 at 9:59 am#242933

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2011,11:30)

Quote (kerwin @ April 11 2011,03:08)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2011,07:27)

Quote (kerwin @ April 09 2011,15:31)

I am convinced that the can be more than one person or thing called The Word of God as after all my bible is The Word of God and yet it is not Jesus.

I was pointing out that Just because the clause “Word of God” is speaking of Jesus does not mean it is in another.

John expects his readers to know what he is speaking of and thus the passage has unwritten context. It therefore renders the passage of little use as a proof text.

The unwritten context that seems to fit is the Jewish belief that the Word of God rules the angels and the Spirit of God is that Word. It could also be as Marty states.

Okay Kerwin,

1. Do you have scriptural support for the “Word of God” being the “Spirit of God”?

2. What era was the Jewish belief you mentioned instituted? Was it after the Messiah they would not recognize came?

mike

Mike, how do you know that Saul of Tarsus is the same person as Paul the apostle. Look at the differences in the two;

Saul persecuted Christians –
Paul was persecuted as a Christian

Saul hauled Christians off to prison
Paul was put into prison because he was a Christian

Saul killed the saints
Paul saved the saints lives.

I think we all can aknowledge Saul changed and became someone else, namely, Paul the apostle.

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

And the logos changed, when he “became flesh;” but God did not change. The terminology of John's opening sentence is inconvertible, i.e., not exchangeable, not equal, not of a kind.

“ho logos” cannot be considered equivalent to “theos.” When “ho logos” became flesh, “theos” did not.

If you can understand how Saul became “Not Saul,” but was Paul, then you should be ables to understand how logos became “not God,” but became flesh.

Logos became flesh, “not God” and for that reason, cannot remain both God and flesh.

This understanding is basic to understanding the logos of God which was but is not, changed to become not what it was, and never does scripture say “logos is God;” only “was.”

To continue to claim Jesus is the logos indicates you do not accept these logical consequences of what John wrote in his gospel.

April 12, 2011 at 10:08 am#242934

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 12 2011,11:36)

Kerwin,
Also, Hebrews 4:12 says the “Word of God is living”
Therefore to state that the bible is the exact word of God would be an error.
So i would have to agree with mike on this one

mY two cents

All of God's words, whether logos or reema, are alive, because they bring life to the saints who depend upon what they read when they read those words.

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

“The rhema which I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life.” John 6:63

The common denominator between logos and reema is both come from God and are living and active.

This in no way implies they change, or somehow “mature” to say something other than they said when they were written.

I know some denominations claim the scriptures are subject to interpretation based upon the understanding of new generations as civilizations progress, but scripture tells a different story.

April 12, 2011 at 10:09 am#242935