JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[mikeboll64]

Opinions about opinions!    I like that, Pierre.

Kerwin very rarely addresses the actual points anymore.  I've asked him if Philo's demiurge wore sandals, or became flesh and blood, or was the son of God, of if John the Baptist came to testify about him.

I asked him these things because I thought that if he answered correctly and said “NO”, then we could nip this Philo thing in the bud.  Because if the answer is “NO”, then Philo is clearly talking about someone other than the Word that the Apostle John wrote about in his gospel.

And since that IS the case, we can easily dismiss Philo's understanding of a demiurge as having nothing to do with the teaching of John 1.

But alas, Kerwin has ignored these points I asked him about……….. as usual.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ July 06 2013,11:09)

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,00:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,07:32) Then why don't you just cut to the chase and admit the “demiurge” IS Jesus?   You are going WAY out of your way to invent a DIFFERENT supernatural being, through whom all things were created, and who is called “the Word”………… when you have the perfect specimen, Jesus, staring you right in the face. He IS called “the Word”, right?  And scripture DOES say all things were created through him, right?  So now all you have to do is BELIEVE JESUS when he says, “I came down from heaven to do the will of Him who sent me”. Are you able to do that, Kerwin?  Or will you stick with a different demiurge who you sometimes like to call “the Holy Spirit Son of God”? Mike, The demiurge of Philo is a being in the sense it exist not in the sense of being a living creature.  He concept is the logos is Jehovah's creative principle and is either believed to have influenced John's writings or come from a common source.   Quote Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos.” This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 ), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea” (“De Migratione Abrahami,” § 18 ; “De Specialibus Legibus,” § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam” (comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 11 ), the “man, the word of the eternal God.” The Logos is also designated as “high priest,” in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 42 , and παράκλητος (“De Vita Mosis,” iii. 14 [ii. 155]). From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wisdom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter. Philos'  logos I didn't invent it,  I am merely reporting on it. K You are reporting opinions about the opinions of other people ,what is my concern is do you believe the. Bible to be the word of God ,or do you just think the book could have some interest for you Which is it

T,

The conversation at the moment is about how the word logus was used in the first century be certain Jews, some who became Christians as Christianity is the true sect of Judaism. It is not about belief in Scripture as it is is first required to comprehend before you can believe.

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ July 06 2013,10:34)

Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2013,01:25) Quote (jammin @ July 03 2013,16:04) kerwin and ed i cant imagine why you people dont want to believe what the bible actually says. do you want to spend your second life in hell? Hi Jammin, Both me and Kerwin do believe what the bible actually says. What we don't believe is: man's alterations to “The Word” of God. Man's alterations hold no Authority over anyone – EXCEPT (maybe) YOU. Jesus has promised all believers – they would be resurrected on “The Last day”. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org altering words is your masterpiece. you want people to believe what is not written in the bible. you call that truth? i call that insanity. it is written that Christ is the word in john 1.1 rev 19.13 .

Jammin,

It is not written.

[kerwin]

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,00:01)

Mike, The demiurge of Philo is a being in the sense it exist not in the sense of being a living creature.  He concept is the logos is Jehovah's creative principle and is either believed to have influenced John's writings or come from a common source.   Quote Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos.” This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 ), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea” (“De Migratione Abrahami,” § 18 ; “De Specialibus Legibus,” § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam” (comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 11 ), the “man, the word of the eternal God.” The Logos is also designated as “high priest,” in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 42 , and παράκλητος (“De Vita Mosis,” iii. 14 [ii. 155]). From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wisdom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter. Philos'  logos I didn't invent it,  I am merely reporting on it.

Mike,

Quote

In certain biblical passages, the divine word is personified, e.g., “So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please, and make the thing whereto I sent it prosper” (Isa. 55:11; cf. also Ps. 33:6; 147:15).

The word here is “personified” and “it” would be replaced with the Koine “he” in Koine Greek as logos is masculine.  John uses that same “he” that some versions translate “it”

John writes that the Word was with God and it was as it went out of his mouth.  John writes that the Word is God and Philo called it the archangel.  Scripture testifies and Philo agrees that all things were made by Jehovah's Word.  Scripture also testifies that there is life in the Word and life it the light of men.  John the Baptist(JB) testified he is not the Light(Christ).  Jesus testifies he is the Light, much as John testifies Jehovah is Love.  JB came to testify of the coming of Christ(Light).  That Light that is to Jesus as Love is to God lights every man that comes into the world.  

I can go on but that is enough for now.

Divine Word

[mikeboll64]

You'll need to go on, because as of yet, you haven't said one single thing that even hints that Jesus isn't the Word who became flesh – while everything John wrote in the first chapter of his gospel points ONLY to this one, very evident truth.

You list Isaiah 55:11, and assume this MUST BE the same exact “Word” that is mentioned in John 1.

But I could list Rev 19:13, and insist that THIS is the Word who was mentioned in John 1.

One of those two scriptures was written by the same exact author who wrote John 1………. so which one has more chance of speaking of the same “Word”?

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2013,00:25)

You'll need to go on, because as of yet, you haven't said one single thing that even hints that Jesus isn't the Word who became flesh – while everything John wrote in the first chapter of his gospel points ONLY to this one, very evident truth. You list Isaiah 55:11, and assume this MUST BE the same exact “Word” that is mentioned in John 1. But I could list Rev 19:13, and insist that THIS is the Word who was mentioned in John 1. One of those two scriptures was written by the same exact author who wrote John 1………. so which one has more chance of speaking of the same “Word”?

Mike,

Revelation 19:13 is a time after the Word was made flesh and only goes to show the Word was made flesh. It also goes to show that Jesus is called by the name of the Word mentioned in Isaiah 55:11. The Word is not only called by that name it is is the Word.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,23:31)

Quote (terraricca @ July 06 2013,11:09) Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,00:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,07:32) Then why don't you just cut to the chase and admit the “demiurge” IS Jesus?   You are going WAY out of your way to invent a DIFFERENT supernatural being, through whom all things were created, and who is called “the Word”………… when you have the perfect specimen, Jesus, staring you right in the face. He IS called “the Word”, right?  And scripture DOES say all things were created through him, right?  So now all you have to do is BELIEVE JESUS when he says, “I came down from heaven to do the will of Him who sent me”. Are you able to do that, Kerwin?  Or will you stick with a different demiurge who you sometimes like to call “the Holy Spirit Son of God”? Mike, The demiurge of Philo is a being in the sense it exist not in the sense of being a living creature.  He concept is the logos is Jehovah's creative principle and is either believed to have influenced John's writings or come from a common source.   Quote Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos.” This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 ), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea” (“De Migratione Abrahami,” § 18 ; “De Specialibus Legibus,” § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam” (comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 11 ), the “man, the word of the eternal God.” The Logos is also designated as “high priest,” in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 42 , and παράκλητος (“De Vita Mosis,” iii. 14 [ii. 155]). From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wisdom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter. Philos'  logos I didn't invent it,  I am merely reporting on it. K You are reporting opinions about the opinions of other people ,what is my concern is do you believe the. Bible to be the word of God ,or do you just think the book could have some interest for you Which is it T, The conversation at the moment is about how the word logus was used in the first century be certain Jews, some who became Christians as Christianity is the true sect of Judaism.   It is not about belief in Scripture as it is is first required to comprehend before you can believe.

kerwin

but that also is a opinion ,because the first Christians are those that have written what we call today the scriptures ,and if you do not trust them because YOUR PERSONAL VIEW ,you will never be done in looking for opinions MEN'S BOOKS LIBRARY ARE FULL OF THEM BUT WHAT CHRIST AS SAID IS THIS ;Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

NOW THE SCRIPTURES HIS THE MESSAGE ,SO ALL OTHER ARE BARE OPINIONS .

SO WE SAY THE WORD (JOHN;1;1)IS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF GOD ;THIS AS BEEN LAYOUT TO YOU BUT YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT TEACHING FROM SCRIPTURES ,BUT YOU CANNOT FIND A RELEASE OF THE IDEA THAT WE MAY BE RIGHT ,AND SO FIND SOME ODD WAY TO CLAIR YOUR SOUL ,

MANY HERE HAVE TO FACE THAT TRUTH

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ July 07 2013,03:37)

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,23:31) Quote (terraricca @ July 06 2013,11:09) Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,00:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,07:32) Then why don't you just cut to the chase and admit the “demiurge” IS Jesus?   You are going WAY out of your way to invent a DIFFERENT supernatural being, through whom all things were created, and who is called “the Word”………… when you have the perfect specimen, Jesus, staring you right in the face. He IS called “the Word”, right?  And scripture DOES say all things were created through him, right?  So now all you have to do is BELIEVE JESUS when he says, “I came down from heaven to do the will of Him who sent me”. Are you able to do that, Kerwin?  Or will you stick with a different demiurge who you sometimes like to call “the Holy Spirit Son of God”? Mike, The demiurge of Philo is a being in the sense it exist not in the sense of being a living creature.  He concept is the logos is Jehovah's creative principle and is either believed to have influenced John's writings or come from a common source.   Quote Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos.” This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 ), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea” (“De Migratione Abrahami,” § 18 ; “De Specialibus Legibus,” § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam” (comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 11 ), the “man, the word of the eternal God.” The Logos is also designated as “high priest,” in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 42 , and παράκλητος (“De Vita Mosis,” iii. 14 [ii. 155]). From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wisdom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter. Philos'  logos I didn't invent it,  I am merely reporting on it. K You are reporting opinions about the opinions of other people ,what is my concern is do you believe the. Bible to be the word of God ,or do you just think the book could have some interest for you Which is it T, The conversation at the moment is about how the word logus was used in the first century be certain Jews, some who became Christians as Christianity is the true sect of Judaism.   It is not about belief in Scripture as it is is first required to comprehend before you can believe. kerwin but that also is a opinion ,because the first Christians are those that have written what we call today the scriptures ,and if you do not trust them because YOUR PERSONAL VIEW ,you will never be done in looking for opinions MEN'S BOOKS LIBRARY ARE FULL OF THEM  BUT WHAT CHRIST AS SAID IS THIS ;Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, NOW THE SCRIPTURES HIS THE MESSAGE ,SO ALL OTHER ARE BARE OPINIONS . SO WE SAY THE WORD (JOHN;1;1)IS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF GOD ;THIS AS BEEN LAYOUT TO YOU BUT YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT TEACHING FROM SCRIPTURES ,BUT YOU CANNOT FIND A RELEASE OF THE IDEA THAT WE MAY BE RIGHT ,AND SO FIND SOME ODD WAY TO CLAIR YOUR SOUL , MANY HERE HAVE TO FACE THAT TRUTH

T,

The hypothesis is that Christianity, being the true Judaism, holds in common ideas of the 1st Century Judaism. One of those is that 1st Century Judio-christianity has a doctrine of the divine Word, a doctrine that does not start a new religion but is a continuation of the old true religion.

Philo of Alexander teaches a a divine word doctrine that like other Jewish divine word doctrines does not hold that the Word is a person, even though he calls it the first born son of Jehovah and archangel.

At the point you make the Word a separate divine person you abandon the teachings of Mosses and the Prophets.

[jammin]

Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,04:41)

Quote (jammin @ July 06 2013,10:34) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2013,01:25) Quote (jammin @ July 03 2013,16:04) kerwin and ed i cant imagine why you people dont want to believe what the bible actually says. do you want to spend your second life in hell? Hi Jammin, Both me and Kerwin do believe what the bible actually says. What we don't believe is: man's alterations to “The Word” of God. Man's alterations hold no Authority over anyone – EXCEPT (maybe) YOU. Jesus has promised all believers – they would be resurrected on “The Last day”. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org altering words is your masterpiece. you want people to believe what is not written in the bible. you call that truth? i call that insanity. it is written that Christ is the word in john 1.1 rev 19.13 . Jammin, It is not written.

of course in your book it is not written. but in the bible, it is written.

believe it or not.
scholars also agree to that that the word in john 1.1 is christ

[kerwin]

Quote (jammin @ July 07 2013,04:45)

Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,04:41) Quote (jammin @ July 06 2013,10:34) Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2013,01:25) Quote (jammin @ July 03 2013,16:04) kerwin and ed i cant imagine why you people dont want to believe what the bible actually says. do you want to spend your second life in hell? Hi Jammin, Both me and Kerwin do believe what the bible actually says. What we don't believe is: man's alterations to “The Word” of God. Man's alterations hold no Authority over anyone – EXCEPT (maybe) YOU. Jesus has promised all believers – they would be resurrected on “The Last day”. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org altering words is your masterpiece. you want people to believe what is not written in the bible. you call that truth? i call that insanity. it is written that Christ is the word in john 1.1 rev 19.13 . Jammin, It is not written. of course in your book it is not written. but in the bible, it is written. believe it or not. scholars also agree to that that the word in john 1.1 is christ

Jammin,

Some scholars believe Word = Jesus but not all. God after all befuddles the wisdom of the Wise. I know of no 1st Century Theologian that taught that the Word was a person. The define Word doctrines are hold that the Word is personified in Scripture but not a person. There are later doctrines that teach otherwise.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,04:01)

Quote (terraricca @ July 07 2013,03:37) Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,23:31) Quote (terraricca @ July 06 2013,11:09) Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,00:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,07:32) Then why don't you just cut to the chase and admit the “demiurge” IS Jesus?   You are going WAY out of your way to invent a DIFFERENT supernatural being, through whom all things were created, and who is called “the Word”………… when you have the perfect specimen, Jesus, staring you right in the face. He IS called “the Word”, right?  And scripture DOES say all things were created through him, right?  So now all you have to do is BELIEVE JESUS when he says, “I came down from heaven to do the will of Him who sent me”. Are you able to do that, Kerwin?  Or will you stick with a different demiurge who you sometimes like to call “the Holy Spirit Son of God”? Mike, The demiurge of Philo is a being in the sense it exist not in the sense of being a living creature.  He concept is the logos is Jehovah's creative principle and is either believed to have influenced John's writings or come from a common source.   Quote Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos.” This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 ), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea” (“De Migratione Abrahami,” § 18 ; “De Specialibus Legibus,” § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam” (comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 11 ), the “man, the word of the eternal God.” The Logos is also designated as “high priest,” in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 42 , and παράκλητος (“De Vita Mosis,” iii. 14 [ii. 155]). From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wisdom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter. Philos'  logos I didn't invent it,  I am merely reporting on it. K You are reporting opinions about the opinions of other people ,what is my concern is do you believe the. Bible to be the word of God ,or do you just think the book could have some interest for you Which is it T, The conversation at the moment is about how the word logus was used in the first century be certain Jews, some who became Christians as Christianity is the true sect of Judaism.   It is not about belief in Scripture as it is is first required to comprehend before you can believe. kerwin but that also is a opinion ,because the first Christians are those that have written what we call today the scriptures ,and if you do not trust them because YOUR PERSONAL VIEW ,you will never be done in looking for opinions MEN'S BOOKS LIBRARY ARE FULL OF THEM  BUT WHAT CHRIST AS SAID IS THIS ;Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, NOW THE SCRIPTURES HIS THE MESSAGE ,SO ALL OTHER ARE BARE OPINIONS . SO WE SAY THE WORD (JOHN;1;1)IS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF GOD ;THIS AS BEEN LAYOUT TO YOU BUT YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT TEACHING FROM SCRIPTURES ,BUT YOU CANNOT FIND A RELEASE OF THE IDEA THAT WE MAY BE RIGHT ,AND SO FIND SOME ODD WAY TO CLAIR YOUR SOUL , MANY HERE HAVE TO FACE THAT TRUTH T, The hypothesis is that Christianity, being the true Judaism, holds in common ideas of the 1st Century Judaism.  One of those is that 1st Century Judio-christianity has a doctrine of the divine Word, a doctrine that does not start a new religion but is a continuation of the old true religion.   Philo of Alexander teaches a a divine word doctrine that like other Jewish divine word doctrines does not hold that the Word is a person, even though he calls it the first born son of Jehovah and archangel.   At the point you make the Word a separate divine person you abandon the teachings of Mosses and the Prophets.

Kerwin

you still do not get it ,CAN YOU NOT YET SEE AND EAR ???WHAT ARE THOSE PEOPLE TO YOU ? NOTHING BECAUSE THEY HAD TO FACE THE SAME REALITY THAN ALL OF US ,AND THAT IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION “DO I BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURES ” IF YOU DO SAY YES ,THEN WHY DO YOU NOT DO IT ,IT SEEMS TO ME YOU HOLDING BACK (LIKE NOT BELIEVING ALL )ARE YOU PRAYING ALSO WITH A DOUBLE MIND IT SEEMS THAT WAY OF WHAT I CAN SEE AND READ OF YOU ,

IF YOU COULD JUST BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURES AS THEY WERE GIVEN TO YOU AND PRAY ;THE GOD OF THE SCRIPTURES WILL SEE YOUR NEEDS AND GIVE THEM TO YOU

YOU ARE STILL AN OWNER ,i AM NOT ;

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ July 07 2013,05:17)

Quote (kerwin @ July 07 2013,04:01) Quote (terraricca @ July 07 2013,03:37) Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,23:31) Quote (terraricca @ July 06 2013,11:09) Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,00:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2013,07:32) Then why don't you just cut to the chase and admit the “demiurge” IS Jesus?   You are going WAY out of your way to invent a DIFFERENT supernatural being, through whom all things were created, and who is called “the Word”………… when you have the perfect specimen, Jesus, staring you right in the face. He IS called “the Word”, right?  And scripture DOES say all things were created through him, right?  So now all you have to do is BELIEVE JESUS when he says, “I came down from heaven to do the will of Him who sent me”. Are you able to do that, Kerwin?  Or will you stick with a different demiurge who you sometimes like to call “the Holy Spirit Son of God”? Mike, The demiurge of Philo is a being in the sense it exist not in the sense of being a living creature.  He concept is the logos is Jehovah's creative principle and is either believed to have influenced John's writings or come from a common source.   Quote Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates “Logos.” This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the “dividing Logos” (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 43 ), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the “idea of ideas” and the “archetypal idea” (“De Migratione Abrahami,” § 18 ; “De Specialibus Legibus,” § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos. He calls the Logos the “archangel of many names,” “taxiarch” (corps-commander), the “name of God,” also the “heavenly Adam” (comp. “De Confusione Linguarum,” § 11 ), the “man, the word of the eternal God.” The Logos is also designated as “high priest,” in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” § 42 , and παράκλητος (“De Vita Mosis,” iii. 14 [ii. 155]). From Alexandrian theology Philo borrowed the idea of wisdom as the mediator; he thereby somewhat confused his doctrine of the Logos, regarding wisdom as the higher principle from which the Logos proceeds, and again coordinating it with the latter. Philos'  logos I didn't invent it,  I am merely reporting on it. K You are reporting opinions about the opinions of other people ,what is my concern is do you believe the. Bible to be the word of God ,or do you just think the book could have some interest for you Which is it T, The conversation at the moment is about how the word logus was used in the first century be certain Jews, some who became Christians as Christianity is the true sect of Judaism.   It is not about belief in Scripture as it is is first required to comprehend before you can believe. kerwin but that also is a opinion ,because the first Christians are those that have written what we call today the scriptures ,and if you do not trust them because YOUR PERSONAL VIEW ,you will never be done in looking for opinions MEN'S BOOKS LIBRARY ARE FULL OF THEM  BUT WHAT CHRIST AS SAID IS THIS ;Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, NOW THE SCRIPTURES HIS THE MESSAGE ,SO ALL OTHER ARE BARE OPINIONS . SO WE SAY THE WORD (JOHN;1;1)IS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF GOD ;THIS AS BEEN LAYOUT TO YOU BUT YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT TEACHING FROM SCRIPTURES ,BUT YOU CANNOT FIND A RELEASE OF THE IDEA THAT WE MAY BE RIGHT ,AND SO FIND SOME ODD WAY TO CLAIR YOUR SOUL , MANY HERE HAVE TO FACE THAT TRUTH T, The hypothesis is that Christianity, being the true Judaism, holds in common ideas of the 1st Century Judaism.  One of those is that 1st Century Judio-christianity has a doctrine of the divine Word, a doctrine that does not start a new religion but is a continuation of the old true religion.   Philo of Alexander teaches a a divine word doctrine that like other Jewish divine word doctrines does not hold that the Word is a person, even though he calls it the first born son of Jehovah and archangel.   At the point you make the Word a separate divine person you abandon the teachings of Mosses and the Prophets. Kerwin you still do not get it ,CAN YOU NOT YET SEE AND EAR ???WHAT ARE THOSE PEOPLE TO YOU ? NOTHING BECAUSE THEY HAD TO FACE THE SAME REALITY THAN ALL OF US ,AND THAT IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION “DO I BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURES ” IF YOU DO SAY YES ,THEN WHY DO YOU NOT DO IT ,IT SEEMS TO ME YOU HOLDING BACK (LIKE NOT BELIEVING ALL )ARE YOU PRAYING ALSO WITH A DOUBLE MIND IT SEEMS THAT WAY OF WHAT I CAN SEE AND READ OF YOU , IF YOU COULD JUST BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURES AS THEY WERE GIVEN TO YOU AND PRAY ;THE GOD OF THE SCRIPTURES WILL SEE YOUR NEEDS AND GIVE THEM TO YOU YOU ARE STILL AN OWNER ,i AM NOT ;

T,

It is you who do not believe Mosses or the Prophets. If you believed them then you would believe the Word is not a person but it the personalization of Jehovah's utterance. You would know that Jesus by his faith gave flesh to God's utterance and so came to be called by it's name.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,12:36)

Mike, Revelation 19:13 is a time after the Word was made flesh and only goes to show the Word was made flesh.

And who did this Word end up being after it was made flesh, Kerwin?  Jesus, right?  So how do you claim the Word was some other demiurge who BECAME Jesus, when all the scriptures point to Jesus being this Word even before he became flesh?

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,12:36)

It also goes to show that Jesus is called by the name of the Word mentioned in Isaiah 55:11.

With the dozens of different applications of “word” in the scripture, what tells you the Word from John 1 is the word from Isaiah 55:11?

Like I said, the same author wrote John 1, 1 John 1, and Revelation 19.  In all of those, the phrase “the Word [of God]” refers to the same exact person.  And this person is not the very words that God uttered when He spoke the universe into being.  Instead, Isaiah and John were using a different application of the word “word” – which we know has many different applications.

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,12:36)

The Word is not only called by that name it is is the Word.

Again with the “called by that name” thing?  You and Marty and Gene go to town with this weak argument, don't you?  

1.  Why would Jesus be called by that name, if he wasn't that thing?

2.  Why would Jesus be called by the name of a demiurge through whom all things were created?  If Jesus wasn't that demiurge, and wasn't the one through whom all things were created, then why would he be called by that demiurge's name?

3.  Does the statement, “no longer will you be called by the name Abram” mean that Abram wasn't REALLY Abram, but instead someone OTHER THAN Abram who just happened to be called by the name “Abram”?  Of course not.

“Called by the name” is just an idiomatic way of saying “your name is”, or “you are”.

For example, “He is called by the name Kerwin” is just a way of saying, “His name is Kerwin”, or “He is Kerwin”.

As you carry along on your quest to topple the actual scriptures and create your own, try not to use such weak arguments.

Instead, just ask yourself WHY he is called the Word of God if he isn't indeed the Word of God.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ July 06 2013,18:00)

If you believed them then you would believe the Word is not a person but it the personalization of Jehovah's utterance.  You would know that Jesus by his faith gave flesh to God's utterance and so came to be called by it's name.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen you post on this site, Kerwin.  And believe me, that's really saying something.  

Jesus “gave flesh to Jehovah's utterance”?  

“Not a person but a personalization”?  

You say that last statement, but then insist the Word should have pronouns like “it” instead of “he” in John 1.  How can it be “personalized” if we don't give it a PERSONAL pronoun?  

Dude, you are all over the place on your quest to conquer the scriptures.  I will pray that God's shines some light in your direction.

[mikeboll64]

REMINDER TO ALL:

It is not necessary to quote the entire conversation each time you add a response to only the last thing the other person said.

Please quote only that last comment when you reply.  And if your reply is directly below the post to which you are responding, you don't even need to quote.  Just add your reply.

[terraricca]

K

Quote

T, It is you who do not believe Mosses or the Prophets. If you believed them then you would believe the Word is not a person but it the personalization of Jehovah's utterance. You would know that Jesus by his faith gave flesh to God's utterance and so came to be called by it's name.

do you have any scriptures for this

you are still going on your opinion so you have still ownership and so are a judge of the scriptures ,BUT I KNOW BETTER I DO NOT FOLLOW OPINIONS BUT SCRIPTURES ,YOU HAVE NONE IT IS A LIE THAT SIMPLE

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ July 08 2013,04:12)

K Quote T, It is you who do not believe Mosses or the Prophets.  If you believed them then you would believe the Word is not a person but it the personalization of Jehovah's utterance.  You would know that Jesus by his faith gave flesh to God's utterance and so came to be called by it's name. do you have any scriptures for this you are still going on your opinion so you have still ownership and so are a judge of the scriptures ,BUT I KNOW BETTER I DO NOT FOLLOW OPINIONS BUT SCRIPTURES ,YOU HAVE NONE IT IS A LIE THAT SIMPLE

T,

There are plenty of Scripture but you do not believe them and instead go by a new teaching that you cannot find support for in the old testament and only a spurious one in the book of Revelations.  

Scripture declares God created the heaven and earth by his Divine Word and nothing was created without his Divine Word.

Jesus was created by God's Divine Word.

Jesus was called by the name of God's Divine Word after it was made flesh and he came in the flesh.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ July 08 2013,07:53)

Quote (terraricca @ July 08 2013,04:12) K Quote T, It is you who do not believe Mosses or the Prophets.  If you believed them then you would believe the Word is not a person but it the personalization of Jehovah's utterance.  You would know that Jesus by his faith gave flesh to God's utterance and so came to be called by it's name. do you have any scriptures for this you are still going on your opinion so you have still ownership and so are a judge of the scriptures ,BUT I KNOW BETTER I DO NOT FOLLOW OPINIONS BUT SCRIPTURES ,YOU HAVE NONE IT IS A LIE THAT SIMPLE T, There are plenty of Scripture but you do not believe them and instead go by a new teaching that you cannot find support for in the old testament and only a spurious one in the book of Revelations.   Scripture declares God created the heaven and earth by his Divine Word and nothing was created without his Divine Word. Jesus was created by God's Divine Word. Jesus was called by the name of God's Divine Word after it was made flesh and he came in the flesh.

k

Quote

T, 1)There are plenty of Scripture but you do not believe them Jesus was created by God's Divine Word. 2)Jesus was called by the name of God's Divine Word after it was made flesh and he came in the flesh.

number 1)

wrong there are none and that is the reason why you have shown none ,

2)this is a lie ;Lk 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU ;THIS IS WHO MADE THE SON COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND MADE MARY A SURROGATE MOTHER ;THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH,

[kerwin]

Mike,

Quote

And who did this Word end up being after it was made flesh, Kerwin? Jesus, right? So how do you claim the Word was some other demiurge who BECAME Jesus, when all the scriptures point to Jesus being this Word even before he became flesh?

No Scripture calls Jesus the Word except one passage in Revelations and that states he is called by the name of the Word as well as Faithful and True. It does not say when he was first called by any of those names. So you are obviously speaking of something else that leads you to jump to the conclusion that the Word is a synonym for Jesus in John 1.

Quote

With the dozens of different applications of “word” in the scripture, what tells you the Word from John 1 is the word from Isaiah 55:11? Like I said, the same author wrote John 1, 1 John 1, and Revelation 19. In all of those, the phrase “the Word [of God]” refers to the same exact person. And this person is not the very words that God uttered when He spoke the universe into being. Instead, Isaiah and John were using a different application of the word “word” – which we know has many different applications.

They all speak of the Word of God in general and there is only one Word of God at that level. You have no evidence to conclude that John was using Word any differently than Isaiah and you now know of the Jewish Divine Word doctrines of the time.

Quote

Again with the “called by that name” thing? You and Marty and Gene go to town with this weak argument, don't you?

You are not comprehending the argument as it is about hierarchy. The Word inherently has a hierarchy than is superior to Jesus as the Word it is what Jesus is called by and the default the Word means the Word.

You have written more but I have addressed enough for now.

[kerwin]

T,

Quote

number 1) wrong there are none and that is the reason why you have shown none , 2)this is a lie ;Lk 1:35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU ;THIS IS WHO MADE THE SON COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND MADE MARY A SURROGATE MOTHER ;THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH,

It states nothing about the Divine Word but is does teach that Jesus was conceived by the power of Jehovah.  There are humans today that are continuously being conceived by the power of science.  Virgin conception may soon become common due to that same power of science.

[Author]

Posts