JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

Participant

T8,

I have not done much study in this area, (i.e. the nature of the body, soul, and spirit, and its relation to the concept of the Logos), but having read through some of the discussions I do have some logical observations and questions.

Quote

My first point that I would like to make is that if the Hebrew way of thinking is the measuring stick, then why did God ignore them for a time and look to the Gentiles. If they were so right in their thinking, then why didn't they recognise that Jesus/Yahshua was the promised messiah? Why did they reject the messiah at the time of their visitation, if their thinking was truth?

Could it be possible that to take the attitiude that Hebrew thinking is always right and Greek thinking wrong, that it may lead one down the same path and fate as many Jews?

Such excellent questions deserve some counter-questioning that may shed light:

If Greek thinking was key in discerning the nature and the arrival of the Messiah, why did God withhold such wisdom from His chosen people in their most sacred writings? Why does the OT issue such strong injunctions against having anything to do with the culture of foreign peoples? Was God purposely trying to hide the crucial mystery of the Messiah's nature in Greek culture so that the Jews would not to “get it”?

Moreover, wasn't it Greek thinking that turned the one God of the Hebrews into a god of three? Wasn't it Greek thinking, in the form of gnosticism, that even Paul and the other apostles had to combat during their ministry, even in the very pages of the NT itself?

Speaking of which…

Quote

Moving on I would like to say that both groups believe that God is one. So there appears to be no commandment broken here. But I do wonder about the following 2 verses:

1 John 4:2
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Now I use to read this verse when I was younger and wonder at why such a verse needed to be in the NT. I mean all you would need to say was that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and you would be of God. So Adolph Hitler could have said this and he would be of God. It just seemed to be stupid to my way of seeing things. But now I think I understand just why John wrote this down at least twice. First of all it is not just about saying it as I am sure that we are all aware we say what we beleive. So we must believe it. But I also see it now as a great way to measure a doctrine to see whether it is of the truth or not. It seems that many false doctrines are easily discerned when we apply this acid test.

Note what the two verses do NOT say. They do not say that the Word, (or the Logos, if you wish to use the Greek) came in the flesh, but that Yeshua the Messiah came in the flesh. This is important because this is presumably the same writer who penned the John 1 passage that the entire Logos as a seperate being doctrine is built upon. Here, he has two great opportunities to reiterate that theme, and at the same time, declare it a foundational doctrine. Yet he simply says that Yeshua came in the flesh, not the Word.

Now this would still be a little confusing, if you are unaware of the doctrinal battle that was going on at the time. Even in the days of the apostles, Gnostics were hijacking the gospel and giving it a pagan interpretation. Specifically, they believed that all physical material, including the human body, was evil, and that the only way to escape that evil was through spiritual knowledge. In any case, they preached that the Messiah had come, but that he was not and could never have been a man, because he would have defiled himself by existing in a physical body. Instead, they said that he only appeared to be a physical person, but was actually a spirit all along, much like an angel. The two verses above are intended to rebuke such thinking by declaring in plain language that Yeshua the Messiah was in fact a real man, a fleshly being – the annointed man of God.

Nick,

As I was posting, your post came up, so I will adress your thoughts quickly since I am out of time.

Quote

Man was formed from clay. Man was created as BODY. Man existed as BODY only without life. God blew INTO his nostrils the breath of life. The breath of God entered the vessel of the BODY. The breath of life did not create the man as he was already created. The breath of life did not BECOME the man but gave life to the man who already was created but did not have life.
The breath of God gave soul and spirit to man. When the breath of God leaves the man his body dies but his soul sleeps till the resurrection.The breath of God does not die. Man does not need to be recreated to be resurrected but the new BODY is put over the old natural body and the undying breath of God for natural man.

According to what you have written above the following formula is true:

Man = Body

What then is soul and spirit? Our divine essence?

December 8, 2004 at 7:53 pm#4827

Participant

Hi WIT,
The definition is strange to our ears but it is God's definition of man in Gen 2.7. Soul and spirit of Man, from the same source, is the Breath of God. Is the Breath of God the essence of God?
No.
I don't think anyone would teach that natural man contains the essence of God. He contains life sufficient to survive till judgement at least but I would have thought the essence of God was the Spirit of God and that is only received by new men in Jesus. Eternal life never destined for eternal death?

December 8, 2004 at 9:39 pm#4829

Participant

ps
This false doctrine about flesh and soul and spirit being one also changes the view of nature and abilities of Jesus at and after his death. He cannot do what is said in scripture about him in Mt 27.50
“And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice AND YIELDED UP HIS SPIRIT”
If there is no separation between spirit and body this is impossible.

The writer quoted by Adam Pastor also equated the scripture where Stephen said ” Lord Jesus receive my spirit ' and the one in Ecclesiastes where it is said man's spirit returns to God at death. These are different as only the spirit of the saved in the NTcan return to be in Jesus surely?

December 8, 2004 at 10:40 pm#4830

Participant

Quote (Ramblinrose @ Dec. 05 2004,05:04)

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God , he hath seen the Father.

GREEK LEXICON
2316 yeov theos theh’-os

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God’s representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judges

Not that any man hath perceived the Father save he which is God's representative, he hath perceived the Father.

Hi RR,
I see you interpret Jn 6.46 as saying Jesus is God's representative who has perceived the Father.

Is that all you see him as? Has he no mind or heart or personality or will of his own?

Perceive is a very 'distant' kind of word since Jesus says he and his Father are one.
??

December 8, 2004 at 10:48 pm#4831

Participant

Nick,

OK. So if I understand you correctly, man is just a body. The soul and spirit of a man together are the breath of God.

So is it fair to say that we are not really men at all, but are, in actuality, the very breath of God, since at death, we don't really die at all but merely discard the body, and live on as soul and spirit? (i.e. Are we the breath of God that comes from God “partaking of the flesh” for a time until we return back to God?) If so, is God going to pass judgement on His own breath on the judgement day, condemning some of it to eternal destruction and giving the rest of it a divine nature?

Also, given that you believe the following:

Quote

The breath of God does not die.

Does this mean that all of mankind is already immortal?

December 8, 2004 at 11:37 pm#4832

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 08 2004,22:48)

Nick,

OK. So if I understand you correctly, man is just a body. The soul and spirit of a man together are the breath of God.

Also, given that you believe the following:

Quote

The breath of God does not die.

Does this mean that all of mankind is already immortal?

Hi WIT,
Good questions and I expect them from you.
OK. How do you interpret this verse in Mt 25.46
” These will go off to eternal punishment and the just to eternal life”?
We know this too from from Revelation 20
“Then death and the nether world were hurled into the pool of fire, which is the second death. Any one whose name is not written in the book of the living was hurled into the pool of fire” and more detail in Rev 21.8

Scripture says death is sleep so resurrection involves waking of the soul and spirit taking on the new body over the old for the saved. I do not know about the unsaved and their resurrection body but if punishment is eternal could it be the new body too as the old would scarcely last long in the fires of eternity?

Yes Paul tells us plainly in 2 Cor 4-5 that we ,at present, inhabit a natural body. Do you agree?

It is also plain that God is going to pass judgement on all mankind and all are created by Him. The breath of a man is only the waste products of our respiration and we are made in the image of God. We do not retain ownership of our breath once it leaves our mouths do we? Why the drama about God condemning the products of His breath? God gave us that breath, and free will with it, and it is now of us and not still of God. Do you agree?

December 9, 2004 at 6:36 am#4851

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 09 2004,13:44)

Hi WhatIsTrue,

To answer this I would first like to say that I do not think this is about Greek versus Hebrew thinking as some here do. Rather I propose that it is Spirit lead thinking as apposed to man-made thinking. So I am neither for nor against either Greek or Hebrew thing. But I am against both if they become the stick that we measure doctrine by.

Now I know that some translators were influenced by Greek thinking just as some were most likely influenced by Hebrew thinking. I am open to the possibility that I am being influenced in either way by reason of the translators who edited the versions of scripture that I read. But I do look up the meanings of words when I read scripture in order to see what the verse is or could be saying. So I do translate verses for myself.

But rather than reject all Greek thinking by reason of it's negative influence such as the Trinity doctrine, I do see that scripture itself uses Greek thinking sometimes, so it cannot be all that bad.

E.g. Acts 17:28-29
For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’”Yes, we are God's children. So we shouldn't think that God is made out of gold or silver or stone. He isn't a statue planned and made by clever people.

So Paul uses some words that were known by the Greeks by one of their poets and confirms that this particular quote is correct.

Also the word Logos is a greek word and was used before John used it in his book.

I have read this quote from a number of places regarding the origin of the word Logos.

A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.

So if we are to reject Greek thinking, then we should reject the word Logos too. But I think that anybody can use anything to demonstrate truth if it fits. It is not that anyone one group of people have all the truth and everyone else are completely deprived. Rather I would say that truth comes from God and can be revealed to us in vision or even parable. This crosses all boundaries and culture and can be explained to us in parables and different languages.

December 9, 2004 at 6:57 am#4852

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 09 2004,14:53)

I throw in the following for consideration. It appears that the Spirit of God is what gives us our life, so all perhaps even the animals have this spirit. But perhaps baptism in the Spirit is a continual flow or connection with God's Spirit rather than something that is given once when we are created. This Spirit that is given to us when we are created is taken back and that results in death. But if we have God's Spirit flowing out of our innermost being, then we shall not taste of death for we have the Spirit of Life and God is the God of the living not the dead.

Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Genesis 6:3
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with [ Or My spirit will not remain in ] man forever, for he is mortal [ Or corrupt ] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Job 32:8
But it is the spirit [ Or Spirit] in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.

Ecclesiastes 3:19
Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [ Or spirit ] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.

Ecclesiastes 8:8
No man has power over the wind to contain it [ Or over his spirit to retain it ] ; so no one has power over the day of his death. As no one is discharged in time of war, so wickedness will not release those who practice it.

John 8:52
At this the Jews exclaimed, Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.

December 9, 2004 at 7:19 am#4853

Participant

To WhatisTrue,

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 09 2004,17:48)

OK. So if I understand you correctly, man is just a body. The soul and spirit of a man together are the breath of God.

Also, given that you believe the following:

I see it like this:

We are our soul. That is who we are, our identity.
What we are is flesh, that is our nature.
We have awareness because the Spirit of God has given us life.

So the Spirit is of God is a part of God that God can take back for himself. But the Spirit of God that we recieve when we are sanctified is God's eternal Spirit.
The soul is who we are. Perhaps the area of our will, character and personality.
The body is the vessel that contains the soul and lets us interact with the physical realm because the body we have is physical and of this world.

So the spirit that God gives us in the beginning is his breath which gives us awareness and life. But baptism in God's Spirit makes us one with him so that our spirit the spirit that he gave us will be one in unity with his Spirit and this makes us pure in spirit.

The spirit is the God conscience part of us.
The soul is the self aware part of us.
The body is the world conscious part of us.

It is our soul (us) and spirit (from God) that God saves and he does this by renewing the spirit inside our soul by joining us with his Spirit. We are eventually given a spirtual body to make us complete.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Psalm 35:9
And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation.

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

This is my take and I open open for correction as I want to learn. But perhaps this post belongs in the 'What is Man' post, so I will also post it there if anyone wants to continue discussing it. If only to make way for further discussion about the logos.

December 9, 2004 at 10:01 pm#4859

Participant

T8,

Quote

I would agree that it is not about Hebrew vs. Greek thinking. To me, it seems that it should be about scriptural vs. unscriptural thinking. The Bereans in Acts were called noble for searching scripture to see if the doctrines they were being taught were true. It is important to remember that at the time the only scripture they had was the OT. So to understand the teachings of the NT, one must first be fluent with the teachings of the OT. Much of Greek philosophy is foreign to the pages of the OT, and as such, is completely unscriptural. If we approach the NT with a different foundation then the one that was used by its authors, then we are likely to come to different conclusions then what the authors intended.

Quote

Also the word Logos is a greek word and was used before John used it in his book.

I have read this quote from a number of places regarding the origin of the word Logos.

So should we be reading the works of Heraclitus to understand the nature of the Word, (or the Logos, if you prefer the Greek), or should we be reading the OT to put John's usage of “Logos” in context?

For the record, what is your definition of “logos”? The one given in the above quote? Is it God's thoughts? Is it a divine being who God begot in His mind?

Nick,

You said in the “What is Man” discussion that Romans 8:16 has corrected your thinking in some way. Are you referring to the definition of man that you have given above, or to something else?

December 9, 2004 at 10:19 pm#4860

Participant

Yes WIT,
I had thought that the Holy Spirit replaced our natural spirit in the death of baptism but Romans 8.16 makes it plain that they coexist within us. Do you agree?

December 10, 2004 at 12:03 pm#4865

Participant

I sometimes think that our spirit is like a drop of water and God who is Spirit is like an ocean. This is how we can be one with God, not in flesh but one in spirit. Just as a drop of water dropped into a lake becomes one with the lake so it is with spirit. But we do not lose our identity. God is God in identity and we have our own identity, for our soul is saved and God is not our soul. But we can also be gods. That is we can partake of God's nature. But we are who we are and God is the 'I am'. He is the ever existing one.

I think this is where a lot of people get confused. Some say Jesus is God because he is divine. Others even say that we are all God and still others say that Jesus is just a man. But we need to understand that indentity and nature are different. When we understand the difference we can easily discern that our messiah is not God himself, but is divine and of God. On the otherhand, we can also see that he is simply not just a man either. For surely if we believe that he is just a man, then we are cursed. As it is written:

Jeremiah 17:5
This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

December 10, 2004 at 5:36 pm#4866

Participant

Nick,

I agree that the Holy Spirit comes upon us when we are called. However, I am not sure how you are defining our spirits now, so I don't know if I agree with you on that. Could you explain your new definition? (You should probably do it in the “What is Man” discussion, but I wanted to make sure that I responded to you here.)

T8,

Quote

Jeremiah 17:5
This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

You are painting with a pretty broad brush using that one verse. By your interpretation, we shouldn't even trust Jeremiah, or any scripture, as they came to us by men. Those that believe that Yeshua was a man believe that he was God's special annointed one – (that is the very definition of messiah, or christ, if you prefer the Greek) – meaning that he was more annointed than any other man in history to bring us God's message, and to fulfill the plan of salvation. That would mean that he was more annointed than Jeremiah, whom you trust, more than Moses, whom you also trust, and more than Paul, whose words you quote and trust more often than the words of Yeshua himself. Ultimately, neither you nor I are trusting in the messengers that God sends us. We are trusting in the message that they bring us, trusting that it is the message of God. That is why it was so important that Yeshua did not speak his own words, but the words of his Father. Those that believe Yeshua was a man believe that God kept his promise to raise up a righteous Prophet and King from the seed of David. Those that believe that Yeshua was divine and that he pre-existed David, Abraham, and in fact was actively involved in the creation of the whole world, turn that promise into a mystical slight of hand. (i.e. Yeshua is really the direct seed of God, and David has nothing to do with his existence whatsoever.)

By the way, did you see my last post at the end of page 7? You didn't respond to my question about the “Logos”, so I assume that you might have missed it.

December 10, 2004 at 6:18 pm#4867

Participant

Hi WIT,
Do you believe that the Word of God is written by the Holy Spirit through men?If you do then any questions about human authorship are irrelevant. Also any comparison or division between any of those authors has no place for all that men add is style from their personality.
If you don't then can fall into the trap of following Paul, or Apollos or Jeremiah in the same way some christians were warned off. The Spirit of God is greater than any natural man uses as vessel and so is God's word.

Is it the Spirit of God who teaches through all scripture giving it harmony and completeness and balance.Yes.

If you do believe these things scripture teaches then do you believe Jesus is the Son of God who was with God in the beginning and was sent into the world? Do you believe he is the Messiah, the prophesied Son of David come as servant in the flesh and coming again as ruler of the earth?
Scripture also teaches all these things.

Do we believe these revealed truths …..or is understanding essential first as it was with Thomas?
We cannot make our understanding more important than the Word of God. That can become idolatry of our mind surely?

If Jesus was only man then you also must deny scriptures that he was conceived of the Spirit? You also deny that he was of divine nature and humbled himself becoming like us in every way in the flesh as a man. I am sure you know these truths so am interested how you can seem to discard them?.

December 10, 2004 at 7:42 pm#4871

Participant

Nick,

You wrote:

Quote

Do you believe that the Word of God is written by the Holy Spirit through men?

I wrote in my previous post:

Quote

Ultimately, neither you nor I are trusting in the messengers that God sends us. We are trusting in the message that they bring us, trusting that it is the message of God.

You wrote:

Quote

If you do believe these things scripture teaches then do you believe Jesus is the Son of God who was with God in the beginning and was sent into the world?

John 1 says that the Word was in the beginning with God. It does not say that “Jesus” was. You are assuming that Jesus is the Word. I don't know of any scripture that says that. You could infer it from John 1:14, but that assumes that you understand exactly what is meant by “the Word becoming flesh”. Could it also just as easily mean God's plan coming to fruition in the life of Yeshua?

You wrote:

Quote

Do you believe he is the Messiah, the prophesied Son of David come as servant in the flesh and coming again as ruler of the earth?

I wrote in my previous post:

Quote

Those that believe that Yeshua was a man believe that he was God's special annointed one – (that is the very definition of messiah, or christ, if you prefer the Greek) – meaning that he was more annointed than any other man in history to bring us God's message, and to fulfill the plan of salvation. … Those that believe Yeshua was a man believe that God kept his promise to raise up a righteous Prophet and King from the seed of David.

You wrote:

Quote

I agree. Is your understanding about pre-existence coming from the OT scriptures that the Bereans searched, or is it coming from a Greek interpretation of the NT?

You wrote:

Quote

We have already discussed the whole virgin birth doctrine and my doubts about its authenticity, and especially the authenticity of the Matthew passage, (one of only two), that asserts it. Unless you want to reopen that discussion, I will let my previous thoughts on the matter stand.

As for the Phillipians verse you referenced, let's look at it in context:

Phillipians 2:
“6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death– even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

If your understanding of this passage is correct, that “Jesus” left heaven to become a man, then can you tell me what position of authority or place he had in heaven before he left? Why did God have to exalt him if he was already the only begotten son of God since before the world began? Would he not have already been above the angels and above all of mankind, by nature of his birth and inheritance alone? Shouldn't he simply be returning to his position, and not just for the first time, coming into it?

December 10, 2004 at 8:40 pm#4875

Participant

Hi WIT,
I believe Jesus is the Word of God or Logos.
Rev 19.11
“The heavens were opened and as I looked on , a white horse appeared; it's rider was called 'The faithful and true'.Justice is his standard in passing judgement and in waging war. His eyes blazed like fire, and on his head were many diadems. Inscribed on his person was a name known to no one but himself. He wore a cloak that had been dipped in blood and his name was the Word of God. The armies of heaven were behind him riding white horses and dressed in fine linen, pure and white. Out of his mouth came a sharp sword for striking down the nations . He will shepherd the nations with an iron rod;it is he who will tread out in the winepress the blazing wrath of God the Almighty. A name was written of part of the cloak that covered his thigh
'King of kings and Lord of lords' “
Do you not say this is Jesus??

Yes we must trust the messengers as well as their message.

The firstborn Son of God had higher rank than all the other sons of God who were present before the creation of earth as shown in Job 38.7 and Ps 89.7. He always was higher than the angels and that is why it says he became for a time lower than the angels in Heb 2. He came to earth and overcame the prince of this world and subjects everything in creation again to himself and then subjects himself and all again to the Father, as 1 Cor 15 24f tell us.
He then is exalted by th Father as Lord of lords and sits at the right hand of the Father-far greater glory than he previously held. He is proven worthy for all knees to bow to him by his utter obedience[Phil 2.9f].
I do understand your doubts, but do not agree with them, about the virgin birth but I did not know you also doubted that Jesus was conceived of the Spirit as well.

December 10, 2004 at 9:38 pm#4876

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 11 2004,12:36)

Hi WhatisTue,

This is a good point. But I would still say that if Jesus were just flesh, then we would be cursed to trust in him. But as I am sure that you know, he is not just flesh. He came in his Father's name (authority) and John teaches us that he was divine.

So do I trust in Moses? I trust what God showed him was true and I trust that what God showed Abraham was true. But do I trust them entirely. No I do not. Both men were sinners and they made mistakes, even big ones. So I would be cursed to trust in them and to use them as the measuring stick for righteousness. I do not even trust the translators who translated the words and happenings of Moses and Abraham. But I trust that all scripture is inspired by God and we do need to study in order to see what the scriptures are saying and what the translators may have got wrong.

But do I trust in Christ 100%? Yes I do. I trust him even though he came as a man and partook of the flesh, I trust him emphatically. I trust him more than anyone bar the Father. Even the Father tells us that Jesus is his beloved son in whom he was well pleased. Jesus even said “trust in God and trust in also in me”. Furthermore we are told that to have the Father we must also have the son.

So I trust in the son because he is the only way to the God in whom I could not fellowship with by reason of my own sin. I trust that Christ is the one who brings me back to God. I trust the son as he is the only begotten of the Father and even though he has his own will, he still chose to be obedient to God. Even God approves him. But I do not trust in Moses, Abraham or even myself. We are all weak in the flesh and God is not a man that he should lie.

But in my spirit I have a witness to God's Spirit. This is what I trust above my own flesh. When I hear the Spirit I trust that which he shows me, even if my mind is offended by what he says. When I read from writings that were inspired by the Spirit, that is what I trust. When I hear a scientific theory I do not trust it. I consider it, but I do not trust in it emphatically.

I trust no man, not even myself, for all flesh is weak. But thank God that we have the Spirit and we only need be lead by God's Spirit if we are to be the sons of God.

December 10, 2004 at 9:59 pm#4877

Participant

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 11 2004,12:36)

(i.e. Yeshua is really the direct seed of God, and David has nothing to do with his existence whatsoever.)

To WhatisTrue,

What I say is not a complete answer, but I offer it for consideration.

If we can be the children of Abraham even though we are not direct descendants of him, then perhaps Jesus can be the son of David even if it were true that he was not derived through David's line.

Matthew 3:9
And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

John 8:40
“If you were Abraham's children,” said Jesus, “then you would [ Some early manuscripts “If you are Abraham's children,” said Jesus, “then] do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.

Galatians 3:7
Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.

The point is that we sometimes put too much trust in the natural, when time and time again I see that what I sometimes think is happening in the natural has a much deeper meaning in the Spirit.

That is why it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It is also written somewhere that God's ways are not our ways. So if I were to take a complete natural stance in judging who were the children of Abraham, then I would be wrong by reason of my exclusion of the spiritual meaning which is the meaning that matters to God.

This is done so the natural man cannot understand. God hides his truth but lets those who are noble seek it out.

But in saying all this, I do not exclude that Christ could have been the natural son of David too. For a cultural reason like being a Jew by adoption equating to being a descendent of David through Joseph. Or through Mary's line as a direct natural descendant. I do not have enough info to teach about this.

December 10, 2004 at 10:27 pm#4878

Participant

Nick,
Yes, I believe the figure in Revelations 19:11 is Yeshua. (For the record, given that the book is highly symbolic, I admit to a strong likelihood that I might misunderstand it.) I'm glad that you bring up this scripture, so I can understand your beliefs about “the Logos” better. Here are my questions:

What is the Logos? Is it all of God's thoughts? Is it simply the name of the pre-existent Messiah? Or is it something else altogether?

Assuming that “the Logos” is an actual person, what was he before the world began? An angel? The embodiment of God's thoughts? A god?

Quote

Based on Job 38:7 and Psalm 89:7, you seem to be grouping him with angels. That's what those two verses are referring to.

In the Hebrew passage, it does not say that he became lower than the angels. It says that he was made lower than the angels. That passage was first applied to mankind in general and then to Yeshua. We are all made lower than the angels as a matter of rank in creation. In the Kingdom of God, that passage will be fulfilled for all of mankind that overcomes. Man will once again have the entire world in subjection to him, as Adam did before the fall.

The meaning of the other passages that you quote depend upon the foundation that we are building on. I need to better understand your “Logos doctrine” before I can comment any further.

Quote

I do understand your doubts, but do not agree with them, about the virgin birth but I did not know you also doubted that Jesus was conceived of the Spirit as well.

What do you mean by “conceived of the Spirit”? Are you saying that the Spirit fathered Yeshua through Mary, that God comingled His “seed” with the egg of a woman? That's how I understand it, and I can not agree with that.

T8,

I am on my way out the door, but I just saw your replies. Let me just ask you this:

Since you trust in “Jesus” and in Yahweh, and you believe neither to be a man, then is it safe to say that you trust in two gods?

T8 and Nick,
I will try to come back soon to continue this very edifying debate. Thank you both.

December 10, 2004 at 11:44 pm#4881