- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Marty………You have it right brother , they just do not understand that GOd calles things before it ever takes place and he glorify thing befor they ever come into existence. He prophecies and them creates it and them glorifies it. As in the case of Man, ” what is man that thou art so mindful of him and cares for him for thou has created him lower then the angles for the tasting of death , but thou hast (a past tense expression) glorified him with honor and Glory and placed him over the works of YOUR Hand. Jesus was just the first to recieve this preordained glory. If these people would have read on they would has seen what it continued to say “But we do not yet see man (as a whole) raised to glorified and honored , but what do we see (A FOR RUNNER) WE SEE CHRIST JESUS RAISED WITH GLORY AND HONOR WHO WAS ALSO MADE LOWER THEN THE ANGLES , just like we are, and as RAISED TO RECEIVE THIS PREDESTINED GLORY AND HONOR GIVEN HIM BY THE HAND OF GOD.
Marty…………> THESE PEOPLE HAVE A NEVER ENDING DESIRE TO SEPARATE JESUS FROM US AND OUR LIKENESS, ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE HIM DIFFERENT FROM US , JUST AS THE GNOSTIC'S AND TRINITARIANS AND ALL PREEXISTENCES DO, THEY ARE those who SEPARATE Jesus from us AND REJECT GOD perfecting WORK IN MANKIND, THE (MAN) JESUS who is the Christ.
You have it right Marty, hold on to what God has given you to understand , IMO
peace and love to you and yours brother…………………………………….gene
Quote (t8 @ June 15 2011,11:44) We know that God created all through the Logos. But it also says that God created all through Jesus Christ. In addition, it says that The Logos became flesh was Jesus. So The Logos becoming flesh is Jesus
And through the Logos God creates all
And through Jesus God creates all.So what is the difference?
John 1-4
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.Colossians 1:15-17
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.They almost read word for word, and one is attributed to the Logos and the other the son. The former even identifies Jesus later in the book.
Hi t8:And so, the Logos pertains to Jesus, but he is not the Logos.
God made everything by him and for him and without him was nothing made that was made, and that is for sure, but he did not become a sentient person until he was born of the virgin Mary.
The whole of the OT speaks either prophetically or symbolically about him. This is the Logos of God, and in the NT God has spoken to humanity through him, and in his exalted position he watches over the Word of God to perform it. “His Name” is called the “the Logos of God”.
Love in Christ,
MartySo God literally made all things through the Logos and symbolically through Jesus?
Or symbolically through both, according to you?It says “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” And this is pertaining to the Logos, that was with God.
I don't see your view lining up with that. The symbolic argument would also mean that the mentions of Logos in John 1:1 are symbolic too because it is the Logos that was WITH God in the beginning is also the light of men. A symbol is not usually a HE and certainly cannot be WITH. Rather an attribute of God is in God, not WITH God.
In addition to your view not adding up with scripture (the way it is written at least), none of the early fathers (next generation), second century apostles, as well as other pre-Nicene apostles and teachers taught this. They taught the Logos in question was the firstborn of all creation, the son of God. And some of them were experts in the language of the day too such as Origen.
Perhaps the Gnostics taught what you believe. I don't know enough about them though.
Quote (942767 @ June 15 2011,12:25) And so, the Logos pertains to Jesus, but he is not the Logos.
OK.So you are saying that God literally made all through the Logos BUT symbolically through Jesus.
Yet both scriptures pretty much say the same thing. How is it that you can add this condition externally to one and not the other? If I had that luxury I could choose to say that repentance is symbolic and not literal and then in the blink of an eye, I don't need to repent.
I will be honest and say that it is hard to trust someone when they can rule out whatever they want in this fashion. Because it is too convenient and doesn't foster an honest understanding because it is subject to what conditions you apply to each scripture. Let's just say that bias has a thriving eco-system in that world.
Quote (t8 @ June 15 2011,20:43) Quote (942767 @ June 15 2011,12:25) And so, the Logos pertains to Jesus, but he is not the Logos.
OK.So you are saying that God literally made all through the Logos BUT symbolically through Jesus.
Yet both scriptures pretty much say the same thing. How is it that you can add this condition externally to one and not the other? If I had that luxury I could choose to say that repentance is symbolic and not literal and then in the blink of an eye, I don't need to repent.
I will be honest and say that it is hard to trust someone when they can rule out whatever they want in this fashion. Because it is too convenient and doesn't foster an honest understanding because it is subject to what conditions you apply to each scripture. Let's just say that bias has a thriving eco-system in that world.
T8……….Actually you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of brother.The Logos and God are one and the same thing, just as your “Logos”, Spirit (intellect) driven words are the same as you are. God was truly (IN) Jesus by His LOGOS. IMO
peace and lvoe to you and yours T8……………………gene
And the Logos was WITH God…
Also, you conveniently ignore the definite article.
The God and The Logos is the way it is written.
Not The God and logos.
You might need a small course on Greek grammar and the definite article.Gene, I haven't changed any rules when reading each verse. That is the difference. You need to in order to derive your understanding.
And the LOGOS became flesh
Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Quote (t8 @ June 15 2011,20:37) So God literally made all things through the Logos and symbolically through Jesus?
Or symbolically through both, according to you?It says “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” And this is pertaining to the Logos, that was with God.
I don't see your view lining up with that. The symbolic argument would also mean that the mentions of Logos in John 1:1 are symbolic too because it is the Logos that was WITH God in the beginning is also the light of men. A symbol is not usually a HE and certainly cannot be WITH. Rather an attribute of God is in God, not WITH God.
In addition to your view not adding up with scripture (the way it is written at least), none of the early fathers (next generation), second century apostles, as well as other pre-Nicene apostles and teachers taught this. They taught the Logos in question was the firstborn of all creation, the son of God. And some of them were experts in the language of the day too such as Origen.
Perhaps the Gnostics taught what you believe. I don't know enough about them though.
No, t8:Jesus is the basis for the “whole of creation”. And so, the Logos of God pertains to him, but he is not the Logos.
Please do a study of the Word of God and see if you don't come up with what I am saying.
In the OT the Hebrew equivalent of Logos is apparently “dabar”.
In Genesis the plan of God was to make man in his own image, and Jesus is the last Adam, and the express image of
God's person, and it is through him that God has spoken to humanity in these last days, but the Logos or the Word of God came to those in the OT. God spoke to those in the OT through prophets.Here is a scripture which supports this:
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God(Logos) came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Pastry @ June 16 2011,03:08) And the LOGOS became flesh Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
As I said, the Logos is the Word of God and it pertains to Jesus, and what God has said pertaining to the coming Messiah was made a reality when God in His timing brought forth his Son into this World.Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ June 14 2011,19:25) God made everything by him and for him and without him was nothing made that was made, and that is for sure, but he did not become a sentient person until he was born of the virgin Mary.
Everything was made “THROUGH” a “him”, who wasn't even a “him” until ages later?Nothing was made without this “him”, who wasn't even a “him” until he was born of Mary?
That's pure gobbledygook, Marty. Because Col 1:16 clearly calls him “HIM”, not “the THOUGHT of him in God's heart”.
And Hebrews 1:2 says the ages were created through GOD'S SON, not “the thought in God's heart of His future Son”.
You are doctoring the Book to fit your doctrine. And I'm STILL waiting for an answer to my previous question:
Marty, you keep saying, “in the mind of God” or “in the mind and heart of God” or “God had already forseen”, etc.
My question is why JESUS, not GOD, would have said “the glory I HAD“? And why did he use the words “I HAD” if the glory was only a glory forseen by God which Jesus hadn't yet attained to?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2011,11:15) Bump for Marty Hi Marty,
You keep saying, “in the mind of God” or “in the mind and heart of God” or “God had already forseen”, etc.
My question is why JESUS, not GOD, would have said “the glory I HAD“? And why did he use the words “I HAD” if the glory was only a glory forseen by God which Jesus hadn't yet attained to?
Marty, if your Lord and King says HE HAD glory alongside God before the creation of the world, then why won't you believe him?
Btw, your scripture doesn't answer even one of the chinks in your armor that I've pointed out. I'm BEGGING YOU to answer these points, Marty. Because I know that by trying and realizing that you CAN'T, I might help you to see the truth.
I pray for peace and understanding from God to you brother,
mike
Hi Mike:I suppose he used the terms “I Had” because God has showed him the he would be exalted to his position as Lord and Christ over all of his creation, and he believed God (this is faith).
Jhn 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine.
Jhn 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Jhn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.
Jhn 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Jhn 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
To illustrate this, the scripture states that Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. The name Abraham means “Father of a multitude”, and yet Abraham went many years bearing this name and did not have the heir that God had promised him.
God said to him:
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.Rom 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ June 15 2011,18:42) I suppose he used the terms “I Had” because God has showed him that he would be exalted to his position as Lord and Christ
The phrase “I HAD” does not correspond to “he would be exalted”, Marty.In Phil 3:21, Paul speaks of his body being transformed sometime in the future. Do you think, in this context, it would have made sense for Paul to speak of the glorious new body he was hoping for as the body HE HAD?
And the only thing your scriptures show me is that “name anymore be called Abram” doesn't mean anything other than Abraham's actual name use to be Abram. Take this scripture into consideration the next time you try to claim that “his name is called The Word of God” means anything other than The Word of God IS one of his names.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2011,11:57) Quote (942767 @ June 15 2011,18:42) I suppose he used the terms “I Had” because God has showed him that he would be exalted to his position as Lord and Christ
The phrase “I HAD” does not correspond to “he would be exalted”, Marty.In Phil 3:21, Paul speaks of his body being transformed sometime in the future. Do you think, in this context, it would have made sense for Paul to speak of the glorious new body he was hoping for as the body HE HAD?
And the only thing your scriptures show me is that “name anymore be called Abram” doesn't mean anything other than Abraham's actual name use to be Abram. Take this scripture into consideration the next time you try to claim that “his name is called The Word of God” means anything other than The Word of God IS one of his names.
mike
Mike, you asked me why he would have used the term I had and what I tried to show you is that he used this because of faith. God had shown him how he would be glorified upon the completion of his earthly ministry. “He had it from the beginning”. It was a done deal!THE WORKS WERE FINISHED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD
And God changed Abram's name from Abram to Abraham. And said to him thy name “shall be” Abraham. Did God change Jesus name or is he still Jesus?
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty! All you are doing is ignore plain written scriptures like tese
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
hn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.In these Scriptures you make the mistake to see that there are God, and the Word, two beings, not one.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:Here too it shows that God created all through His Son…..
Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
He is the beginning of the creation of God…..
The reason God names His Son is because Jesus means God with us…..
The scriptures you gave have nothing to do withj the subject at hand…
Peace IreneQuote (942767 @ June 16 2011,11:12) No, t8: Jesus is the basis for the “whole of creation”. And so, the Logos of God pertains to him, but he is not the Logos.
If he wasn't the Logos that was WITH God, then who was it?I cannot in good conscience write off two or more scriptures written in the same fashion as to being the one whom God created all things through. i.e., Logos and Jesus. Further the fact that the Logos that was WITH God is identified as Jesus a verse or two later makes it even worse to ignore.
Your treatment of Logos and Jesus doesn't line up. I would have to assume the scenario of God creating with his own internal logos which by the way is not how John 1:1 writes it, (it is THE Logos, not logos). I would also have to ignore the fact that THE Logos was actually WITH God. And finally the similarity of Jesus and the Logos both being the way God created all things through is too much to ignore.
In short, too many inconsistencies, I would also have to accept your grammatically incorrect version of John 1:1, (read up about THE Logos as opposed to logos), and I would have to ignore the plain text and apply filters to come up with your version and understanding.
These are my reasons for not going along with you.
T8……..The Logos IS the very expression of GOD and His words are with him. Where God is His words are there, That was not the man Jesus at all, but GOD the Father that WAS (IN) Jesus. God's Word was With GOD and was God and Is GOD, God's Words are Spirit it is the very intelligent expression of GOD himself. This Logos came to be (IN) Jesus and comes to be in all true Saints of GOD, it is the Holy Spirit (intellect) given to all true Saints, it is the sperm “SEED” of GOD. Just as John said “for his seed abides (IN) YOU”. Problem here is Trinitarians and preexistences can't believe GOD the Father was Truly (IN) Jesus , so they simple try to make Jesus another GOD or some super Angel of demigod of some kind. Even though Jesus plainly said “the Father who is (IN) me (HE) does the works”. What part of that can't you Trinitarians and Preexistences believe. God the Father was truly (IN) Jesus reconciling the world unto (himself). Jesus said it many times so when are you people going to start to believe what he Said. Why continue to deny God the Father was truly (IN) Jesus? When are you going to believe what Thomas came to see and Proclaim, “MY LORD (AND) MY GOD”. IMO
peace and love to you and yorus……………………………………..gene
Quote (t8 @ June 16 2011,12:58) Quote (942767 @ June 16 2011,11:12) No, t8: Jesus is the basis for the “whole of creation”. And so, the Logos of God pertains to him, but he is not the Logos.
If he wasn't the Logos that was WITH God, then who was it?I cannot in good conscience write off two or more scriptures written in the same fashion as to being the one whom God created all things through. i.e., Logos and Jesus. Further the fact that the Logos that was WITH God is identified as Jesus a verse or two later makes it even worse to ignore.
Your treatment of Logos and Jesus doesn't line up. I would have to assume the scenario of God creating with his own internal logos which by the way is not how John 1:1 writes it, (it is THE Logos, not logos). I would also have to ignore the fact that THE Logos was actually WITH God. And finally the similarity of Jesus and the Logos both being the way God created all things through is too much to ignore.
In short, too many inconsistencies, I would also have to accept your grammatically incorrect version of John 1:1, (read up about THE Logos as opposed to logos), and I would have to ignore the plain text and apply filters to come up with your version and understanding.
These are my reasons for not going along with you.
Hi t8:What is the definition of the Greek word “Logos”, and is the definition different in John 1 from the definition in John 10:35? In both of these verses of scripture, it is “the Word” or “the Logos”. Strong's keys it to the same number.
I am currently studying Greek, but I am not there yet, but I believe I heard Paladin say that “the Logos” is never a person.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Pastry @ June 16 2011,12:34) Marty! All you are doing is ignore plain written scriptures like tese Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
hn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.In these Scriptures you make the mistake to see that there are God, and the Word, two beings, not one.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:Here too it shows that God created all through His Son…..
Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
He is the beginning of the creation of God…..
The reason God names His Son is because Jesus means God with us…..
The scriptures you gave have nothing to do withj the subject at hand…
Peace Irene
Mrs:How many times are you going to tell me this. I have not ignored the scriptures that you have posted again. You have posted them time and time again.
I have already given you my understanding to them and it has not changed. If it does, I will let you know.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (942767 @ June 15 2011,19:11) “He had it from the beginning”.
Your doctrine is confusing, Marty. First, you have to imagine that the words “I HAD” refer to something somebody “WILL HAVE” in the future.Then you say “HE had it from the beginning”, when you don't even believe that Jesus WAS a “HE” from the beginning.
HE had it, although HE didn't even exist TO have it.
And don't give me the “thought of him in God's heart” stuff, because it wasn't a thought in God's heart who said “I came down from heaven” or “I had glory before the creation of the world”.
Marty, can't you see that the mish-mashed, illogical way you are jumbling up tenses is exactly the same kind of mish-mashed, illogical, jumbled up crap the Trinitarians try to push on us?
peace,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
