The Trinity Doctrine

[NickHassan]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2006,23:57)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2006,23:17) Hi E, You say “1. Where in the Scripture does it say that God is unitarian?” Is this how you dare judge God, according to human denominational descriptions? God is not a Calvinist, or a Catholic either ROFOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you are too much…. so much for a little satire ehhhh? the point of this, Nick, is that just as antitrinitarians constantly try and say that the Trinity is unbiblical because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Scripture, so too, then, would the same argument apply to the Unitarians. Get it? lol…… Its the same for you and anyone else who tries to object to the doctrine for the same silly juvenile reasons, none of us exclusively quotes the Bible to one another, never using our own words to interpret the Scriptures, in order to convey meaning, and in doing so, using terms that may not appear in Scripture. Every time we engage in interpretation, and use words that are not Hebrew or Greek, we engage in using words that are not “biblical”. Yet for some reason, due to a great deal of muddle headed thinking, it is thought that objecting to the Trinity because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the scriptures is some kind of substantial objection to the doctrine!! ROFLOL!!!! And I see people here using the same tired tired TIRED old argument again and again and again even though it has been refuted time and time and time again….. sheesh…. what is going to take to get this through some heads….!?!? I mean… go ahead and disagree with the doctrine all you want…. fine… but DON'T be stupid and object for ridiculous reasons….. THAT is the point of point number 1 Nick… comperhende? blessings

Hi E,
This is a biblical study site and since trinity theory is not taught in the bible then you are up against it in trying to prove it to be true, because scripture is the foundation for that proof.

As you yourself quoted
“”in the beginning God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to repay the favor”….

[Proclaimer]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,19:04)

t8… are you not reading carefully? I plainly said that because some of the early church fathers taught the full deity of Christ and the separate personalities and equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it DOES NOT PROVE, per se, that the doctrine is true. That is what I said. Go back and reread it. Ultimately, the doctrine is true if the Bible teaches it. But that is quite beside the point I was making. And that point is this: those who object to the doctrine by saying that it is a 4th century innovation or some such other like “objection”, are manifestly and historically mistaken. So just as one cannot reasonably object to the Trinity simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the English translations of the Scripture, so too, one cannot reasonably object to the doctrine of the Trinity by saying that it was “invented” by Constantine or some church council who were sitting around trying to figure out new doctrines to invent out of whole cloth. Do you understand both the limit AND extent of what I am saying here? blessings

Yes.

I also understand that Origen (whom you quoted) calls your doctrine false.

[Brian B.]

Epestimaniac, thank you for the time you spent on my reply. Blessings to you also. My question refers to you saying “Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself.” It is this last part your implying that he did this himself, when the scriptures you quoted all show that it was through him or by him from the father. my understanding is that Jesus is given power to do things great by the father who is greater than he. “I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things.” (John 8:28) He said: “I have come in the name of my Father.” (John 5:43) And “He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory.”—John 7:18. Did Jesus speak of his own originality? This is of course a different topic, but is in line with the power of Jesus, and what it means to be God's son. Now I wrote to you before thinking that you had a belief in the trinity. Is this true? Is Jehovah greater than Jesus? That is my only question back to you.
Peace unto you, Brian

[Brian B.]

Sorry Epistemaniac, I spelled your screen name wrong. I am one of those point and peck keyboard typers.

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
I fully agree with your fine statement here

“Ultimately, the doctrine is true if the Bible teaches it.”

But the bible teachers do not teach trinity theory…..so where does it stand??

[Proclaimer]

The Trinity doctrine isn't taught in scripture.
The Trinity doctrine isn't even implied in scripture.
Scripture teaches that God is the Father and Jesus is the son of God and the Word of God.

Jesus is OF God. Not God himself.
Jesus is the messiah OF God.
He is the son OF God.
The Word OF God.

That is what scripture teaches and it is taught clearly.
So clear in fact that if you were to say that the Trinity doctrine were implied, you would be going against scripture.

He was WITH God.
He is WITH God.
He is at the RIGHT-HAND of God
He is the mediator BETWEEN God and man.

There is so much scripture that describes who and what Jesus is that it is hard to mistake. The only explanation as to the source of Jesus being God himself, is to say that the source of those teachings do not come from the same source as scripture because scripture and Trinitarian creeds cannot be reconciled.

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
You said
“
Just as these things are all not properly to be said of you, so too, trying to equate your human familial relationship scheme to that of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is way beyond comparing apples and oranges.”

Are you saying we cannot follow the Son of God and be filled with the Spirit of God as he was unto salvation as sons of God and brothers of Jesus?

Acts 10 38

“38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

Can you show us how using your trinity theory about God how to read this verse?
Thanks.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,19:04)

And that point is this: those who object to the doctrine by saying that it is a 4th century innovation or some such other like “objection”, are manifestly and historically mistaken.

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

A theology of the Holy Spirit developed slowly, largely in response to controversies over the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned as heresy the Arian teaching that the Son was a creature, neither equal to, nor coeternal with, the Father. ………Later pronouncements brought only one important doctrinal change, the 9th-century addition of filioque to the creed of Constantinople. That addition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son, has been a source of discord between Eastern and Western Christianity ever since.

WikipediA
The word “Trinity” comes from “Trinitas”, a Latin abstract noun that most literally means “three-ness” (or “the property of occurring three at once”). Or, simply put, “three are one”. The first recorded use of this Latin word was by Tertullian in about 200, to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or, in general, to any set of three things.(Theophilius to Autolycus – 115-181 – introduced the word Trinity in his Book 2, chapter 15 on the creation of the 4th day).

[Proclaimer]

Yes as Nick pointed out, the way the essay is written, you write the conclusion first and then you go about proving your belief. This technique leaves no room for proving your teaching to be wrong.

But if we are to be students of truth and a children of God who let the Spirit lead them into all truth, we should be like a blank canvas so that God can paint the picture of truth to us.

Otherwise all we have is bias and we know that anyone can back bias with scripture by pulling a scripture out here and there.

This technique is used by cults, denominations, and anyone who wishes to justify what they want.

Why can't we let scripture do the talking and then conclude that which scripture teaches us?

After all truth comes not from the spirit of man, but from the spirit of God.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2006,00:04)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2006,23:42) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2006,22:53) Hi E, No teacher , no matter of which generation since Christ and the apostles, can match in veracity and integrity the scriptures themselves. And since Trinity is not written it remains a myth. really? how quickly you forget that Jesus is specifically and explicitly called God….. do you need me to remind you yet again of this fact Nick? Hi E, I asked you before to explain why Jesus is called the Son of God very often in scripture and by the greatest possible witnesses and “God” only a few times and yet you prefer the second to the first as foundational truth. Why is this?

and I asked you a question Nick… why didn't you answer me? or is the format of this forum one that gives you the right to ask questions and prevents this same right to others?

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Scripture does not teach that Yahshua is the word of Yahweh, but spoke the word of Yahweh (Yahchanan [John] 3:34; also cf. ).14:24).

Since the word that Yahshua spoke was not his own, but that of Father Yahweh, he certainly could not be the word of Yahweh. Revelation 19:13 says that Yahshua's name is CALLED the Word of Yahweh, not that he IS the word of Father Yahweh. Yahchanan 1;1 does not say “… and the word was Yahshua.”, it says “…and the word was Yahweh.”

[epistemaniac]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 01 2006,00:15)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,18:49) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 31 2006,23:16) Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,12:57) Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude. To epistemaniac Haven't had time to read your post yet, but I did see the above quote. When you address a person you say 'him' or 'he'. When you address a group of people or a family, you address them as 'they' or 'them'. Therefore when you address your God, you should address them correctly as 'them' or 'they' should you not? In my family there are 3. I am the Father, and I have a son. But no one would refer to all of us as 'him' or 'his' or 'he'. Even if in nature we are all the same. Even if I am one flesh with my wife. In the scriptures God is referred to as 'him' and 'he'. But your God is 'they' and 'them'. Doesn't sound like the same God to me. no, not at all… God is one in essence so it is perfectly appropriate to adress God in the singular….. t8, are you God? were you born as a result of the Holy Spirit overshadowing your mother? Do you dare forgive sins committed against God? Can you raise yourself from the dead? Just as these things are all not properly to be said of you, so too, trying to equate your human familial relationship scheme to that of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is way beyond comparing apples and oranges. God is sui generis, completley unique. Sure, we are created in God's image, and it is appropriate to use anthropomorhisms when speaking of God, but don't allow yourself to be drawn into the error of the Mormons when they go so far with this that Mark Twain rightly said of people in generla… “in the beginning God created man, and ever since that time, man has been trying to repay the favor”…. so I urge you to take great care in comparing yourself and your relationships to God, you may end up creating God in your own image….. blessings To epistemaniac Sorry but your God is 3 persons. Everyday I bet you address persons as “him” “his” etc. Your God is “them” and “they” (plural). Or do you not address God as person/identity? It is correct to address a person as “him”, “his” (singular). Also, a person calls himself “I”. Scripture uses “I” when referring to a person. “I am he who speaks to you.” “I am Gabriel.” YHWH says: “I am that I am”. Not “We are that we are”. Your God is plural persons. “They”, “Them”. If you cannot say “them” then you deny right there that your God is 3 persons do you not? You contradict yourself and your teaching is found wanting.

t8… there is no need to be sorry that God is 3 in person and 1 in essence… that is orthodoxy, true belief, belief that if it is denied is rank damnable heresy… so never apologize about speaking the truth, even if you disagree with it… perhaps, if you continue to say it, write it, read it often enough, well, perhaps God may grant you repentance leading to salvation….?

you said “YHWH says:
“I am that I am”.
Not “We are that we are”.”

Well you err in not knowing the Scripture….

Gen 1:26 HCSB Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the animals, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”

Gen 3:22 HCSB The LORD God said, “Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, and also take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.”

Gen 11:7 HCSB Come, let Us go down there and confuse their language so that they will not understand one another's speech.”

Of course it is true that God speaks of Himself in the singular, He also speaks of Himself in the plural…. now the fact that anti trinitarians want to only use the Scriptures that agree with their presuppositions, and try to ignore the passages that don't… I personally am constained to align my entire life and belief system under the entirity of the Scriptures, not just the Scriptures I want while ignoring the rest…. I don't know about you…. lets hope for the best… shall we?

[NickHassan]

Hi F4Y
Rev 19
” 11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

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

14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”
Jn 1.14f
” 14And 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. “

16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

1Jn 1.1f
” 1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

[Proclaimer]

To F4Y

Quote

Scripture does not teach that Yahshua is the word of Yahweh, but spoke the word of Yahweh (Yahchanan [John] 3:34; also cf. ).14:24). Since the word that Yahshua spoke was not his own, but that of Father Yahweh, he certainly could not be the word of Yahweh. Revelation 19:13 says that Yahshua's name is CALLED the Word of Yahweh, not that he IS the word of Father Yahweh. Yahchanan 1;1 does not say “… and the word was Yahshua.”, it says “…and the word was Yahweh.”

Jesus is also called the son of God.

Let's apply your thinking…………………………………………………………

Ok the answer is:

Yahshua is CALLED the son of God, not that he IS the son of God.

Um, but don't you teach that Jesus is the son of God?

[NickHassan]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,21:47)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2006,00:04) Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2006,23:42) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2006,22:53) Hi E, No teacher , no matter of which generation since Christ and the apostles, can match in veracity and integrity the scriptures themselves. And since Trinity is not written it remains a myth. really? how quickly you forget that Jesus is specifically and explicitly called God….. do you need me to remind you yet again of this fact Nick? Hi E, I asked you before to explain why Jesus is called the Son of God very often in scripture and by the greatest possible witnesses and “God” only a few times and yet you prefer the second to the first as foundational truth. Why is this? and I asked you a question Nick… why didn't you answer me? or is the format of this forum one that gives you the right to ask questions and prevents this same right to others?

Hi E,
In Scripture

Moses is called a god
Judges are called gods.
Angels are called gods.
Satan is called a god

So what is your point?

Now can you address my question?

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
When God uses “We” and “Us” then what leads you to any of the assumptions that

He is speaking of other gods
or
He is speaking of other deities in Himself
or
He is speaking of other deities with Him in a triune God?

and not other heavenly beings?

[Proclaimer]

Yes maybe God was talking to his Word/Jesus. The one by whom he created all things through. The only reason that one would think multiple persons/one God, in Genesis, is if they had that belief to start with.

[Proclaimer]

Quote

Hi E, In Scripture Moses is called a god Judges are called gods. Angels are called gods. Satan is called a god So what is your point? Now can you address my question?

Yes Nick.

eloyhim and theos.

It's sort of strange that people do not understand that you need to find out what kind of god is being referred to.

The adjective or description usually tells us.

E.g., the god of this age is certainly different to the Almighty God.

Yet both use “theos”.

So if we are to read the few places where Jesus is called “theos”, and conclude that he is the Almighty, then surely to be fair you would have to also conclude that men, angels, satan, and idols were too.

Of course we do not advocate this way of thinking.

If we are to be fair students of the scripture, then we shouldn't mix and match what we want in order to satisfy our itching ears. We should let the scriptures teach us, even if we do not understand what we are reading or if it doesn't fit with ones theology.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Sep. 01 2006,21:56)

Scripture does not teach that Yahshua is the word of Yahweh, but spoke the word of Yahweh (Yahchanan [John] 3:34; also cf. ).14:24). Since the word that Yahshua spoke was not his own, but that of Father Yahweh, he certainly could not be the word of Yahweh. Revelation 19:13 says that Yahshua's name is CALLED the Word of Yahweh, not that he IS the word of Father Yahweh. Yahchanan 1;1 does not say “… and the word was Yahshua.”, it says “…and the word was Yahweh.”

wrong…..

(John 1:1-3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

You seem to fail to understand the logos doctrine….. perhaps this will help your lack of knowledge in this area? Hopefully you are teachable…..?

“4 Jesus Christ as the Word. (a) The Understanding of the Word of God in the Johannine Literature. John's Gospel, like the Synoptics (cf., e.g. Mk. 4:14 ff.; Lk. 5:1), denotes Jesus' preaching as the proclamation “of the word [of God]”: Jesus' words are those of the Father, in which the work of the Father is performed (Jn. 14:24; cf. 3:34; 14:10; 17:8). Anyone, therefore, who hears Jesus' words and accepts them in faith hears God's word (Jn. 5:24; 8:51; 12:48; 14:24; 15:3; 17:14, 17). Because Jesus' word is at the same time the word of the Father, it is therefore the word of salvation (Jn. 14:24) and of truth (Jn. 17:17), and that is why Jesus' words effect life in believers (Jn. 5:24) and judgment in non-believers (Jn. 12:47 f.). The “words of God” which Jesus speaks, are in their totality God's self-revelation to men–“God's word”, “thy word” (Jn. 14:6, 14, 17). But this is not to have mentioned the specifically Johannine understanding of the word of God in his Gospel; for “the words of the Revealer (sometimes called ta rhemata, 3:34; 6:63, 68; 8:47; 12:47 f.; 14:10; 15:7; 17:8) are not identical with the revealer as 'the Word'” (R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, I, 1968, 483). Over and above the statement that Jesus' word is the word of God, Jesus himself is called “the Word” (Jn. 1:1, 14). That is, Jesus' words (of proclamation) as the words of God are grounded in Jesus' being as the Word. “He is not called the Logos absolutely because he utters the word or words of God; on the contrary, his words rather have the force of God's words because he is the Logos, that is, the divine revealer and redeemer” (ibid.). This absolute and personal use of the Logos-concept in its identification with Jesus is found in addition to Jn. 1:1, 14 only in 1 Jn. 1:1 (Jesus as “the Word of life”) and Rev. 19:13, where the name “the Word of God” is used for Christ as he returns in victory (combining Wis. 18:5 and Dan. 7).

(b) The understanding of the Word of God in the Johannine Prologue. (i) The original form of the Logos-hymn. In understanding the Johannine Logos-prologue (Jn. 1:1-18), it is important to see that this represents a commentary-like adaptation of an earlier Logos-hymn, which originally comprised vv. 1-4 (5), 9-11, 14, 16 (R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., 224 ff.; E. Schweizer, Neotestamentica, 113 f.). It spoke of the incarnation of the Word in v. 14 only, and not in v. 5 (contra E. Käsemann, “The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel”, in New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 138-67, see especially 150 ff.). Since v. 14 is a part of the original poem, representing in the incarnation of the Logos a genuinely Christian statement, it cannot stem from gnostic-Baptist circles, since it is utterly improbable that a pre-Christian hymn would have spoken of the incarnation of the Baptist (against R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 18). The original Christian hymn consists of four strophes and describes: (1) the divine Being of the Word and his function in creation (v. 1-3); (2) the function of this Word as light and life for the world of men (v. 4 f., 9); (3) the rejection of the Word and his work in the human world even before the incarnation (Jn. 10 f.); and (4) the complete surprise of the event of the Incarnation of the Word and its believing acceptance in the Christian community (vv. 14, 16).

As wisdom vainly sought for a dwelling amongst men and returned to her heavenly place (Eth. Enoch 42:1 f.), so the original Christian hymn recounted the fate of the Word: the Logos, the true light which illuminates every man, by whom the world came to be, came to his own property but was not accepted by his own people (Jn. 1:5, 9-11). “As one shuts the door in the face of some unwelcome travelling stranger, so it turned out . . . with the divine Logos: people did not open up to him. They knew nothing of the fact that he had given the world its being; he was like a stranger, with whom one has nothing to do” (E. Haenchen, “Probleme des johanneischen Prologs”, in Gott und Mensch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, 1965, 131). Only in Jn. 1:14 does the hymn come to the actual statement of the incarnation of the Word, leaving the Wisdom-narrative far behind; “but now the Logos did the most that could be done, the final thing still possible; in order to gain acceptance among men, He became man himself” (v. 14, ibid.). The Incarnation of the Word is “the unprecedented thing to which the Wisdom-myth could offer no parallels” (ibid.).

(ii) The Prologue of John's Gospel. In consequences of the incorporation of the commentary, and in particular of vv. 6-8 and 15 (12 f., 17 f.) with the Evangelist's allusion to the appearance of John the Baptist, whereby vv. 5, 9-11 are no longer to be referred to the work of the Logos before his incarnation, but anticipate the Incarnate Logos, the Prologue of Jn. 1:1-18 is to be divided into three sections: (1) The pre-existent being of the Word (Jn. 1:1-4). “In the beginning”–not “at the beginning” of Creation (Gen. 1:1), but in the “time before time” of divine eternity–was the Word (pre-existence of the Word, Jn. 1:1), the Word was with God (personal reference, Jn. 1:2), indeed, “the Word was God” (essential divinity of the Word, Jn. 1:1). By this Word, whereby the universe was created, men have their life and the benefit of light (Jn. 1:3 f.). (2) The coming of the Word to the world of men and his incomprehensible rejection (Jn. 1:5-13). The Logos who came into the world, to whom John the Baptist bore witness (Jn. 1:6- 8; in the Evangelist's mind vv. 5 ff. thus already hint at the incarnation), was rejected by men in an incomprehensible way (Jn. 1:9-11), with the exception of those who came to faith and thus became children of God (Jn. 1:12 f.). (3) The event of the incarnation of the Word and its redeeming significance (Jn. 1:14-18). Without surrendering–indeed, rather, in the application of–his essential divinity, the Word became a mortal man (sarx), took up residence amongst men, and, as the presence of God's glory with men, signified the gift of God's grace and covenant faithfulness to them (Jn. 1:14, 16), surpassing the OT revelation of the word in the commandment and becoming event in Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:17 f.).

(iii) The religio-historical derivation of the Logos concept. The question as to the sphere from which Jn. adopted the term Logos, “the word”, can even now not be answered with certainty.

(1) In Greek philosophy (cf. TDNT IV 79-91), in which “the word” plays a large part (according to Heraclitus: men do not comprehend this Logos, which always is, TDNT IV 81), and amongst the Stoics (cf. TDNT IV 84 f.; M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, 195
92, 32 ff.), where the Logos is the “world-reason” which sustains and permeates the cosmos like a fine spiritual substance, the personal character of the Logos (Jn. 1:1 f.) and the thought of the world resisting the Logos (Jn. 1:10 f.) are both absent. (2) The attempt to derive the Logos-concept from the OT pure and simple, founders on the facts that, although the LXX can occasionally speak of the word of God as of an active force (cf. Ps. 147:15-18; Wis. 9:1), it does not speak of the word of Yahweh as a person; and that, although the proclamation of “the word of God” by Jesus is spoken of in the absolute in the NT outside the Johannine literature, Jesus himself is never spoken of as the Word of God (not even in 2 Cor. 1:19 f.; cf. T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, III, 1909, 327 f., 330). Thus, the Johannine concept transcends the OT concept of the word. (3) In Jewish Wisdom-speculations, where Wisdom participates in the creation of the world, she is sent into the world by God and rejected by men (Prov. 8:22-36; Sir. 24:3-12; Eth. Enoch 42:1 ff.). If Wisdom too has many conceptions and material statements parallel to Jn. 1:1 ff., yet not only the statement concerning the creation of Wisdom (otherwise in Jn. 1:1 f.), but also the fact that Jewish Wisdom literature cannot account for the choice of the term “Logos” (= “the Word”) in Jn. 1:1 ff. speaks against a direct derivation of the Johannine Logos-concept from Jewish Wisdom-speculations. (4) The designation mêmra' (word) in the Targums appears as the Memra of Yahweh or Adonai, and always as an executive agent for God's activity, which preserves his transcendence; but it cannot be considered as a parallel, since there was never any hypostasis of “Memra” (SB II 302 ff.; V. Hamp, Der Begriff “Wort” in den aramäischen Bibelübersetzungen, 1938). It is equally improbable either that the statements concerning the Torah made by the rabbis (which are quite similar to those made concerning the Logos (SB II 353, ff.) are in fact parallels, or that Jn. 1:1 ff. is intended to be an antithesis directed against Torah-speculation (cf. G. Kittel TDNT IV 134 ff.), since the Logos-concept is lacking precisely in the antithetical vv. 1 and 17, and since it is not certain whether Jn. 1:17 ever belonged to the original hymn at all. (5) A gnostic derivation of the Logos-concept is doubtful not only because the myth of the descent of the Redeemer does not allow of certain proof of its pre-Christian origins (C. Colpe, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule, FRLANT Neue Folge 60, 1961), but also because the Logos concept by and large remained foreign to the gnostic systems (W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, [1913] 1970, 387 f.; J. Jeremias, “Zum Logos- Problem”, ZNW 59, 1968, 83 ff.; R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., I, 229 ff., 238 ff., 543-57). (6) Hellenistic Judaism. Not only the rendering of Hab. 3:5 “plague goes in front of him” (JB; deber, plague) in the Gk. translation of the LXX by “before him [God] will go the Logos [dabar]”; and not only Wis. 18:14 ff. (God's all-powerful Logos comes down from heaven to bring punishment and judgment on the Egyptians; J. Jeremias ZNW 59, 1968, 83 f.), but also Philo's Logos-doctrine provide the strongest contacts with the Johannine Logos-concept. In Philo not only is the Jewish Wisdom identified with the Logos, the Logos understood as a mediating power between God and the Creation and ascribed divine predicates, but Philo (e.g. De Cherubin 125 ff.; Spec. Leg. 1, 81; Leg. All. 3, 96) also simultaneously combines OT statements of creation by the word, Stoic statements of the Logos as the world-soul and Platonic elements (the Logos as the archetype of the created world) with one another (cf. R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., I, 235 ff.; TDNT IV 88 ff.). In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept, pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism.

(iv) The Incarnation of the Word. What does the Johannine message of the incarnation of the Word (Jn. 1:1 ff.) signify within the compass of, and in antithesis to, this Hellenistic Judaic milieu? By contrast with its outlook (cf. Philo), according to which the divine Logos binds together the heavenly and earthly world and rules over and through both macrocosm and microcosm, the Good News of the Johannine Prologue consists in the fact that the Logos no longer works “spiritually” but is found embodied in a mortal man. It no longer embraces the whole world in a simultaneous transcendence and immanence in order to mediate salvation to it through inspiration, but the Logos “becomes one man among others, takes their sin to Himself” (C. Colpe, TDNT VIII 470; cf. Colpe, “New Testament and Gnostic Christology”, in Religions in Antiquity. Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough, 1968, 227 ff., especially 235 f.). Thus the incarnation of the Word does not mean that Jesus in his pure humanity proclaims the eschatological word of God (R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 35 f.; and Theology of the New Testament, II, 1955, 40-49, 59-69). Over against what is in point of fact a kenotic interpretation–i.e. one which eliminates the divinity of Jesus (H. J. Iwand, “Vom Primat der Christologie”, in Antwort. Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, 1956, 181), and a replacement of the Word becoming flesh by a notion of the flesh becoming word (i.e. the earthly Jesus), one must formulate in the sense of the Johannine Prologue–not a genuine man, commissioned with God's eschatological call to decision, dwelt amongst us–but the Word, God himself (Jn. 1:1 f.) in his divine glory (Jn. 1:14 f.) who assumes the full reality of historical objectivity, human transience (sarx) and human death (Jn. 1:14a; cf. 6:61, 63; 1:29; 1 Jn. 3:5; Rom. 8:3). Or, with Schniewind's pertinent phraseology, “Even the prologue speaks of the Cross” (in H.-J. Kraus, Julius Schniewind. Charisma der Theologie, 1965, 202). The incarnation of the Word thus does not mean Jesus as the eschatological ambassador, in whom God is present and acting (pace Bultmann); it signifies the presence of God himself in the flesh. A religious historical parallel to this statement will for this reason never be found (cf. C. Colpe, TDNT VIII 470). The message of the incarnation of the Word (Jn. 1:14) “is more and other than the historicising of a mythological event” (ibid.). In other words, the incarnation of the Word means the presence of God in the person of Jesus, not just the present activity of God in the words of Jesus.” (NIDNTT)

and

R. Brown exemplifies the opinion of most recent scholars regarding the background to the Johannine logos when he says, “it seems that the Prologue’s description of the Word is far closer to biblical and Jewish strains of thought than it is to anything purely Hellenistic” (1.524). (See Schnackenburg. Cf. Dunn who places the concept in the context of Alexandrian Judaism best exemplified in Philo.)
2.2. Logos within the Literary Context of the Fourth Gospel. When approaching the issue of backgrounds it is important to keep two things in mind. First, proper historical method dictates a comprehensive and reasoned evaluation of background material. Too often a supposed parallel surfaces which leads to further study in a particular corpus of literature to the neglect of other relevant bodies of literature (cf. Kysar).
Second, verbal similarities do not necessarily imply conceptual similarities. The use of similar words in seemingly similar ways can deceive us into thinking that two authors are discussing the same concept. Only when one document is understood in its own right can it be compared to another which must also be understood in its own right. This being the case, a person reading through the Philonic corpus and the Gospel of John will probably notice many verbal similarities, though they will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that John and Philo, when they use the word logos, are referring to different concepts which hardly overlap. For Philo the logos is the Reason inherent in the universe, whether that Reason be divine or human. Thus it can mediate between G
od and man. This neo-Platonic concept of the logos is foreign to Johannine thought. As the Gospel unfolds, Jesus, who is the logos, claims to have had a personal relationship with the Father before the Incarnation (Jn 17:5). Any real similarities that exist between Philo and the Fourth Gospel are due to the fact that both Philo and John draw on the concept of the word of the prophets as the Word of God.
The corollary to this principle is that one must seek to understand words and concepts first and foremost within the immediate literary contexts in which they occur. Therefore, it seems preferable to search for the meaning of logos in the Fourth Gospel itself before looking at religious or literary backgrounds outside the Gospel (cf. Carter, 37).
A careful reading of John 1:1 yields a wealth of information about the logos. The verse is divided into three simple clauses, each of which contains the imperfect of the verb einai (“to be”). In each of the clauses the verb has a different meaning. In the first clause it means “to exist.” The logos existed in the beginning. The phrase “in the beginning” is an obvious allusion to Genesis 1:1 (LXX en archē; MT bƒré˒šîṯ). So John is saying that at the very beginning of creation the logos already existed. In the second clause the verb “to be” describes a relationship—the logos was with God in the sense of being in his presence. Therefore, the logos was distinct from God and at the same time in fellowship with God. In the third clause the verb “to be” is used in a predication in which the character or essence of the logos is defined—“The word was God.”
The choice of words and their order is very significant in this third clause. If John had wanted to say that the word and God are the same being he could have written ho theos ēn ho logos. Or if he had wanted to say that the word was a god he could have written ho logos ēn theos. Or if he had wanted to say the word was divine he could have written ho logos ēn theios. As it stands, theos ēn ho logos could mean any of these three statements. But it could also mean the word was God in the sense that the church has explained the nature of Christ since Chalcedon. He is a part of the unity of the triune Godhead. E. C. Colwell has shown that definite predicate nouns preceding the verb do not need the article to show that they are definite. So a reference to the one God of the Bible is entirely possible in this third clause. The church has under stood that Christ is deity based on this verse along with others (cf. Phil 2:6; Col 1:19; 2:9; Heb 1:3, 9). But to say that Christ is the only person in the Godhead is to neglect the second clause of the same verse. In later debates the church has interpreted the NT to say that the logos, with the Father and the Spirit, is one of the three eternal and co-equal persons of the God head.
John 1:3–4 describes the activity of the logos. He is the agent of creation (“all things came into being through him”), and he is the source of true life which is the light of all people. Later in the Gospel John expands on this latter activity of the word which gives life (Jn 6:35, 48, 51, 58; 11:25) and light (Jn 8:12; 9:1–12).
John 1:14 describes the Incarnation of the logos. Here John uses a different “to be” verb (ginomai) which, to this point in the prologue he has reserved for created beings: “The word became flesh.” Note that John does not say the word became a man. He uses “flesh” (sarx) to signify the very nature of the Incarnation. Wesley captured the essence of John 1:14 in his great Christmas hymn: “Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail the incarnate deity; Pleased as man with men to dwell; Jesus our Immanuel.”
Finally, after saying that the incarnate logos, Jesus Christ, has replaced the Law given through Moses, John identifies him as the monogenēs theos (the unique one of God) who reveals the unseen God. This logos has a personal relationship with the Father. This theme of sonship continues through the Fourth Gospel and infiltrates the rest of the NT canon (see Son of God).
2.3. Conclusion. The meaning of logos in the Johan nine prologue is clear. The Word is the person of the Godhead through whom the world was created, who took on human nature in history and who is the source of life and light for humanity. But why did John use logos to describe this person? If John was thinking of any of the particular background dis cussed earlier in this article, it is not yet clear which one he had in mind. But his use of logos in the rest of the Gospel (which is the only evidence we have of his intentions) seems to imply that the word he is speaking of is that prophetic word which goes forth from God’s mouth to accomplish creation, judgment, redemption and renewal. John uses logos because it is the natural word for expressing the meaning of the Hebrew word dāḇar when that word was used in the context of God’s revelation. Beginning with its first sentences the Gospel asserts that Jesus is God’s final Revelator (cf. Heb 1:1–2). This assertion corresponds to the evangelistic purpose of the Gospel (Carson) and fits well with recent hypotheses that the original historical context of the Fourth Gospel was a debate with first-century Judaism over the locus of revelation (cf. Carter, 47 n. 82).
See also John, Gospel of; Wisdom.
Bibliography. J. Bergman et al., “λέγω κτλ,” TDNT IV.84–125; R. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) 1.519–24; R. Bultmann, “The History of Religions Background of the Prologue to the Gospel of John,” in The Interpretation of John, ed. J. Ashton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 18–35; D. A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered,” JBL 106 (1987) 639–51; W. Carter, “The Prologue and John’s Gospel: Function, Symbol and Definitive Word,” JSNT 39 (1990) 35–58; E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933) 12–21; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980); R. Kysar, “The Back ground of the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel: A Critique of Historical Method,” CJT 116 (1970) 250–55; idem, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975); R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John (3 vols.; New York: Herder and Herder, 1968) 1.481–93. (D. H. Johnson in
Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1997, c1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (482). Downers Grove: InterVarsity.)

blessings

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2006,22:09)

Quote (epistemaniac @ Sep. 01 2006,21:47) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 01 2006,00:04) Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 31 2006,23:42) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 31 2006,22:53) Hi E, No teacher , no matter of which generation since Christ and the apostles, can match in veracity and integrity the scriptures themselves. And since Trinity is not written it remains a myth. really? how quickly you forget that Jesus is specifically and explicitly called God….. do you need me to remind you yet again of this fact Nick? Hi E, I asked you before to explain why Jesus is called the Son of God very often in scripture and by the greatest possible witnesses and “God” only a few times and yet you prefer the second to the first as foundational truth. Why is this? and I asked you a question Nick… why didn't you answer me? or is the format of this forum one that gives you the right to ask questions and prevents this same right to others? Hi E, In Scripture Moses is called a god Judges are called gods. Angels are called gods. Satan is called a god So what is your point? Now can you address my question?

so let me ask you Nick, is Jesus a false god or a true god?

[Author]

Posts