- This topic has 523 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by .
- Was with God and was God (cf. Phil 2:5-6)
- Had life (zoe) “in Himself” (Cf John 10:28, 11:25, 14:6)
- Made the world but the world knew Him not
- Was made flesh (cf. Phil 2:7-8, 2 Cor 8:9)
- Dwelt among them
- His glory was as of the only begotten of the Father
- Was full of grace and truth (grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, vs 17)
- Provide plausible explanations for the contextual data surrounding John 1:1c (mentioned above), and
- Prove that the logos is a “personified inanimate idea or thing”.
Quote Rule 7 – Logos is used over 200 times in the New Testament. In all but a very few places it makes no sense translated as Jesus. Have you fallen on the preponderance of the evidence or on the minority where your definition fits?
Greek words often have more than one possible meaning and application. Just because a certain application is infrequently seen in scripture does not invalidate it. Your point is not an apt one.Quote Let’s consider a few more of your proof texts
Jn 10:30
I and my Father are one.Here you break rule 1 and 5. If this is a proof text of Jesus being God and one with the Father, then the same should hold true for
these verses.John 17
21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.22″The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
Has the Trinity expanded now to include all the saints in some multi-million unity of God? These verse are written by the same author as the verse in John 10, so he must be meaning the same kind of oneness in both.
You actually have made quite a good point here. However, given that the word “one” is unpredicated, it's not right to be dogmatic about what Yahshua meant exactly. It is interesting to me though that the Pharisees (who may have had a deeper understanding of “how the Hebrews thought and wrote” than even yourself Music42) were very upset at this statement, and the context in which it was made:John 10:28-33
28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29″My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
30“I and the Father are one.”
31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”
33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for (blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.“Suffice to say, the accusation of blasphemy and the attendant execution by stoning is not a light matter to the Jews. To falsely stone someone of blasphemy in 1st Century Judea would have been a very serious error of judgement, fatal even…..
Quote Jude
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.You have misquoted this vese completely. I don’t even have a rule for that one because unless this was a complete mistake I cannot concieve of anyone being that dishonest with scripture. Verse 25 says “The only wise God our saviour THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD be glory and majesty…..
With an accurate quote it makes a whole diferent picture.
WJ quoted from the KJV. Hardly dishonest. You should apologise to him.Quote
Matt 1:23
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.This is no mystery. Here you have broken rule 1,2 4, 5, and 6. Jesus had the fullness of God in him.
Now THIS is a misquote.Colossians
For in Him all the fullness of Deity (Gr. Theotes) dwells in bodily form,Theotes, not theos…..
Theotes does not mean “God” (theos), it is used as an abstract noun for ‘theos’.
Joseph H. Thayer, the Unitarian scholar, defines theotes in his lexicon as follows:
“Theotes…(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9”
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words records this:
”…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties.
A.T Robertson who is widely recognized as the worlds most authoritative grammarian said in his scholarly book Word Pictures In The New Testament:
“There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from ‘Theos,’ deity) and not to be confused with ‘Theiotes’ in Romans 1:20 (from ‘Theios,’ the quality of God, divinity), here only in N.T. as ‘Theiote’ only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. ‘Theiotes’ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions.”
The Expositor’s Greek Testament, confirms A.T Robertson on this issue:
“The word (“Theotes”) is to be distinguished from “Theiotes” as Deity, the being God, from Divinity, the being Divine or Godlike. The passage thus asserts the real Deity of Christ.”
It does not designate that Jesus was filled with the Father Himself. Paul would have used the noun ’theos’ if he wanted to convey this. Also, the word is never used in reference to men – only Yahshua. Nor can you translate “theotes” to mean a simple quality or attribute (i.e., theios), it goes well beyond this, and instead refers to ‘divine essence’ or simply put “being God”!!
Thayer notes as one of his sources the work of Richard Trench on synonyms in the New Testament. Trench said of these two terms (i.e. theotes and theiotes):
… yet they must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in the process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; theotes being from Theos, and theiotes not from to theion, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to Theos, but from the adjective theios… But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His person for a season and with a splendor not his own; but He was, and is absolute and perfect God; And the Apostle uses theotes to express the essential and personal Godhead of the Son.
It is theotes which occurs in Col 2:9. Here Paul declares that “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwells in Christ “bodily.” The phrase “fullness of the Godhead” is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ “bodily,” that is after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism. This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not “bodily”; in them it is not manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotes may mean all that theotes can mean; on monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotes means; but theotes must mean the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotes refers to the essence and theiotes to the attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is
merely the thing, of the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotes emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotes might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It is not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of the heathen world, to which “heroes” might aspire, and “demons” attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term “Godhead,” in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert–that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term “God,” dwells in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.
Benjamin B. WarfieldSource: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1149147421-6953.htmlThe most extensive passage on this important idea is found in Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament:
…yet they (theiotes and theotes) must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; theotes being from theos, and theiotes, not from to theion, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to theos, but from the adjective theios …But in the second passage (Col. ii.9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son
Okay, so considering the all the Greek in this verse, Paul affirmed that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Jesus' body. This is an exceptionally emphatic statement, and IMHO this kind of language is only applicable to YHWH.
Quote So when people were near him they were in the presence of the deity that resided in him. You are Spirit filled. To what ever degree you are yielded to God’s Holy Breath to that same degree are people in your presence also in the presence of God. When the priest entered the Temple on the day of atonement they were in the presence of God as revealed in the shakina glory. When the Ark of the Covenant was returned to the people of Israel they rejoiced because the “presence” of God had returned to them.
Music42 why do you suppose it is that the word “theotes” is NEVER USED in reference to ANY OTHER PERSON in the NT? Why also is it that the titles and attributes of YHWH are only applied to Yahshua and not other “spirit filled christians”. Why also is it that no other men are said to have fulfilled prophecies that YHWH made of HIMSELF? And lastly, why aren't OT passages that exclusively reference YHWH applied to men other than Yahshua? John the Baptist was “greatest man born of woman” yet the thong of His sandal He was not worthy to untie. Seems to me that there is something very unique about this man, something that elevates Him (infinately) higher above the rest of us…..Quote Secondly you did not take into consideration the relational way in which Hebrews viewed God and the natural realm. They see a revealing of God as the very presence of God Himself. Jesus revealed God to them and therefore in Jesus’ presence God was with them.
John 1:18 NASB
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.Blessings
1 John 1:1-4
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word (LOGOS) of life;
2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Revelation 19:11-13
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True (Cf. Rev 3:14), and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
12His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Scriptures very plainly states that Jesus is the Logos.
Quote |
Rule 4 and 5. If you definition of word is correct then wherever word (logos) is used in scripture your definition should work. Let's test out your theory that (Logos)”word” should be translated Jesus. In the following few verses I have replaced “Logos” with “Jesus”. Do they become clearer or more confusing? Matthew 8:8 |
This is straw man argumentation. Just because the Greek word “Logos” is used of Yahshua in scripture, it does not necessarily follow that it's ONLY used this way. And I don't believe that WJ has ever proposed this (quote him if I'm wrong). So I think you are building a straw man, and creating a false dilemma to boot. That's at least two logical fallacies, there may be more to follow….lets see.
Quote |
Rule 6 – Not understanding how the Hebrews thought and wrote is a major error. The Hebrew culture many times personified inanimate ideas and things. In Psalms wisdom is personified and given female gender. It is much the same way we call a ship “she”. Also Hebrews always think in terms of function, not intelectual data. |
He he….
This is the 'begging the question' fallacy. You assume the conclusion that Logos is personified, without bothering to prove it first. Yes personification is a common Hebraic literary mechanism, but it may or may not be in effect in John 1. Given that the Logos was “pros” God (i.e. in relationship with God), “was God”, “In him was life” and “All things were made by him” it appears obvious from the context of the passage to (almost) all that the Logos was personified because He was an actual personage. An abstract concept doesn't fit contextually into this passage AT ALL. So, in order to give your theory some credence, the onus is on you to: