The Trinity Doctrine

[david]

Quote

Amen brother, if we don't see Jesus as a simple human being just like us we are pushing him away from our real identity, Saying he preexisted as some kind of super being or what ever, Separates Him from our exact identity. Good post brother.

Gene, he didn't have to be “our exact identity.” He had to match Adam's identity, a perfect, sinless human–for that is what was lost. He is the “second Adam.” Not the second Gene.

There is this scripture which you might wrongly use to support your false argument:
HEBREWS 2:17-18
“Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.
But verse 18 and 4:15 make clear it is talking about something else here.
HEBREWS 4:15
“For we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects LIKE OURSELVES, but without sin.”

So, that's the one big difference–without sin. So he was not identical to us. Yes, he lived as a human. He truly “became flesh.” He suffered trials, problems, etc. So he can truly sympathize with our weaknesses. He was “tested” in all the ways humans are.
This is what these scriptures actually say.

[david]

The Bible and not human reason clearly bears out numerous times that Jesus, the “only begotten son,” “whose origin is from early times” did have a pre-human existence.

He “emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.”

God “prepared a body for him,” and so he “became flesh.”

Jesus spoke of “the glory that [he] had alongside [God] before the world was.”

He repeatedly said things like: “I have come down from heaven” and that he “descended from heaven,” and “from God I came forth and am here.”

He spoke of “ascending to where he was before.”

He said “I am from the realms above” and “not from this world.”

On the question of age, before Abraham existed “I am” or “I have been,” he said.

He is the “beginning of the creation by God” and the “firstborn of all creation.”

And all things “were created through him.” And “he is before all things.”

It was “through [Jesus that] he [God] made the system of things.”

In the beginning, God said: “Let US make man in OUR image.” Jesus was in the beginning and “with God.” “This one [The word, Jesus] was in the beginning with God.” And “All things came into existence through him.”

If Jesus did not pre-exist, then who ever inspired the above words went to a lot of trouble to make it appear as though he did.

[david]

Quote

We perform day after day on these forums and actually believe that we are accomplishing some ministry.

This is not the ministry. The ministry is not talking with the same 8 people over and over. Jesus and his followers went to people everywhere. They lived the ministry. They searched people out.

This is an interesting sharpening tool though.

[david]

Quote

It would be easier for me if Jesus had adamantly rejected the worship of men and directed them to worship the Father when they where worshipping him.

–seeking

The thing is, Seeking, we don't know anyone was “worshipping” him. The word found in Greek that is often translated wrongly is proskyneo (or something like that.) It's basic meaning is to bow down. It can mean many things including worship. It's up to the translator to translate that word which way they like depending on how great their trinitarian bias is.

A lot of this has to do with the influential King James Version. First, it should be pointed out that when we insert the word “worship” where it clearly doesn’t belong–we get the wrong meaning.

MARK 15:19 (New King James Version)
“Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.”

Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar. Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him. The verse before (Mark 15:18) and Matthew 27:29 make clear that they “made fun” of him. It was in a mocking way that they did “obeisance to him,” bowing to him. They were not worshiping him and the context certainly doesn’t allow proskynéo to be translated as “worship” here.
CLEARLY, IT SHOULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRANSLATED AS “WORSHIP.”

The following was taken from a thread dealing with whether or not Jesus was “worshipped.” I found it very interesting:

THE ENGLISH WORD “WORSHIP” USED TO CARRY ANOTHER MEANING WHICH IS OBSOLETE TODAY
The older KJV renders proskyneo as “worship” in every case. But it should be noted, that back then, the English word “worship” also carried another connotation that it doesn’t today, an obsolete definition of worship:
“To honour; to regard or treat with honour or respect. To treat with signs of honour or respect; to salute, bow down to. To honour with gifts. To invest with, raise to, honour or repute; to confer honour or dignity upon.” (The encyclopaedic Oxford English Dictionary)
And so, back then, when the KJV was made, that English word “worship” may have been the right choice. But the English language has changed. Many words in the KJV now mean a completely different thing than they did when the KJV was translated. For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7) To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25.
Anyway, the point of this is to show that the older influential KJV may have made no mistake in it’s rendering of proskyneo (Gk) and hishtachawah (Heb) as “worship” because back then, that English word “worship” was sometimes used as meaning simply to “honour” or “bow down” before.
Today, the meaning of this English word has changed to limit the meaning to divine worship. However, back in the 1600's, that word was used of any human lord, nobles, or magistrates. We still see traces of the old meaning in such things as calling mayors, Justices of the Peace and magistrates in Commonwealth Realms as “Your worship.”

The English language has changed. And so more and more accurate translations are breaking away from tradition and are using “worship” with reference to Jesus.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 16 2009,04:15)

martian….Amen brother, if we don't see Jesus as a simple human being just like us we are pushing him away from our real identity, Saying he preexisted as some kind of super being or what ever, Separates Him from our exact identity. Good post brother. love and peace to you and yours……………..gene

That is true. But to acknowledge that he is also greater is true too. He is the bridegroom and we are the bride. So he is one and we are many. So all of us combined are not even equal to him.

[SEEKING]

David,

Very helpful and informative. Another thought that has come to mind is that even those who meant to worship Him correctly
could have been doing so erroneously wheteher He corrected them our not. I believe we are getting somewhere! Thanks.

proskuneo, pros-koo-neh'-o; from Greek 4314 (pros) and a probably derivative of Greek 2965 (kuon) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literal or figurative) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore) :- worship.

[martian]

I have found that most who cling to the Trinitarian theory fall into one of five faults when interpreting scripture.
1. They rely on English translations rather then digging into the original languages to see what was really written.
2. They do not consider the context (immediate or overall) in which the verse is located.
3. They do not consider the great differences between the Hebrew culture of 2,000 to 7,000 years ago and the Western cultures prevalent since then.
4. They do not measure their doctrine by seeing if it really functions to actually help humanity become like Christ.
And finally 5. They seek proof for their already decided upon doctrine rather then seeking what scripture really says.

Without these considerations accurate interpretation in near impossible.

[martian]

Let me give a prime example of falling into some of the faulty interpretation processes I posted earlier.

Isa 9:6

6For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Most Trinitarians use this verse to prove that Jesus is God.

Not studying the original language —
The word “name” is assumed to be an identifier, identifying this child that is born to be the eternal Father and Mighty God. One in the same in some Triune/multi personality deity.

In fact the Hebrew for “name” is “Shem” and means character or reputation. So now with the proper definition of that word we have —
And His character or reputation will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace
Now we are talking about the character of Christ being like the Eternal Father and Mighty God. Not that Christ is literally God, but that His character is like God. This is how Jesus functioned as God to the people, because he had the character of God. In fact Jesus rebukes the leaders of Israel for not being Gods to the people. In John 10 Jesus quotes psalm 82 in which God rebukes the leaders of Israel for not acting as Gods to the people. For not having the character of God when dealing with the people. This also fulfills the functional aspect of God’s doctrines/teachings. As Jesus functioned with the character of God and was one with Him in that character so are we to function with the character of God and be one with Him and Jesus. (John 17:11, 21 &22) We have hope because the Human Jesus was able to walk within the character of God. We have hope because the human Jesus was resurrected from the dead. We have hope because the Human Jesus with given an inheritance in God and we are joint heirs with him. We have hope because the human Jesus overcame sin and death. Make him non-human and we have no assurance that we can follow the same path.
The immediate and general context of this verse is also ignored.
Verse 6 says a child is born. Can the everlasting Father and Mighty God be born?
Scripture says of Jesus that He was perfected by the things he suffered and grew in stature and wisdom. Does the mighty God need perfecting or growth in wisdom and stature?

Without honesty with scripture a person can come up with all kinds of stuff like the Trinity

[martian]

Quote (david @ Jan. 16 2009,17:48)

Quote It would be easier for me if Jesus had adamantly rejected the worship of men and directed them to worship the Father when they where worshipping him. –seeking The thing is, Seeking, we don't know anyone was “worshipping” him.  The word found in Greek that is often translated wrongly is proskyneo (or something like that.)  It's basic meaning is to bow down.  It can mean many things including worship.  It's up to the translator to translate that word which way they like depending on how great their trinitarian bias is. A lot of this has to do with the influential King James Version.  First, it should be pointed out that when we insert the word “worship” where it clearly doesn’t belong–we get the wrong meaning. MARK 15:19 (New King James Version) “Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.” Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar.  Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him.  The verse before (Mark 15:18) and Matthew 27:29 make clear that they “made fun” of him.  It was in a mocking way that they did “obeisance to him,” bowing to him.  They were not worshiping him and the context certainly doesn’t allow pro?sky?néo to be translated as “worship” here. CLEARLY, IT SHOULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRANSLATED AS “WORSHIP.” The following was taken from a thread dealing with whether or not Jesus was “worshipped.”  I found it very interesting: THE ENGLISH WORD “WORSHIP” USED TO CARRY ANOTHER MEANING WHICH IS OBSOLETE TODAY The older KJV renders proskyneo as “worship” in every case.  But it should be noted, that back then, the English word “worship” also carried another connotation that it doesn’t today, an obsolete definition of worship: “To honour; to regard or treat with honour or respect. To treat with signs of honour or respect; to salute, bow down to. To honour with gifts. To invest with, raise to, honour or repute; to confer honour or dignity upon.” (The encyclopaedic Oxford English Dictionary) And so, back then, when the KJV was made, that English word “worship” may have been the right choice.  But the English language has changed.  Many words in the KJV now mean a completely different thing than they did when the KJV was translated.  For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7)  To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25. Anyway, the point of this is to show that the older influential KJV may have made no mistake in it’s rendering of proskyneo (Gk) and hish?ta?chawah (Heb) as “worship” because back then, that English word “worship” was sometimes used as meaning simply to “honour” or “bow down” before.   Today, the meaning of this English word has changed to limit the meaning to divine worship.  However, back in the 1600's, that word was used of any human lord, nobles, or magistrates.  We still see traces of the old meaning in such things as calling mayors, Justices of the Peace and magistrates in Commonwealth Realms as “Your worship.” The English language has changed.  And so more and more accurate translations are breaking away from tradition and are using “worship” with reference to Jesus.

This is true — The Hebrew word for worship in most cases means to bow down low too. It is used to pertain to kings rulers and people or offices of importance including God.

[942767]

Quote (david @ Jan. 16 2009,17:48)

Quote It would be easier for me if Jesus had adamantly rejected the worship of men and directed them to worship the Father when they where worshipping him. –seeking The thing is, Seeking, we don't know anyone was “worshipping” him.  The word found in Greek that is often translated wrongly is proskyneo (or something like that.)  It's basic meaning is to bow down.  It can mean many things including worship.  It's up to the translator to translate that word which way they like depending on how great their trinitarian bias is. A lot of this has to do with the influential King James Version.  First, it should be pointed out that when we insert the word “worship” where it clearly doesn’t belong–we get the wrong meaning. MARK 15:19 (New King James Version) “Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.” Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar.  Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him.  The verse before (Mark 15:18) and Matthew 27:29 make clear that they “made fun” of him.  It was in a mocking way that they did “obeisance to him,” bowing to him.  They were not worshiping him and the context certainly doesn’t allow proskynéo to be translated as “worship” here. CLEARLY, IT SHOULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRANSLATED AS “WORSHIP.” The following was taken from a thread dealing with whether or not Jesus was “worshipped.”  I found it very interesting: THE ENGLISH WORD “WORSHIP” USED TO CARRY ANOTHER MEANING WHICH IS OBSOLETE TODAY The older KJV renders proskyneo as “worship” in every case.  But it should be noted, that back then, the English word “worship” also carried another connotation that it doesn’t today, an obsolete definition of worship: “To honour; to regard or treat with honour or respect. To treat with signs of honour or respect; to salute, bow down to. To honour with gifts. To invest with, raise to, honour or repute; to confer honour or dignity upon.” (The encyclopaedic Oxford English Dictionary) And so, back then, when the KJV was made, that English word “worship” may have been the right choice.  But the English language has changed.  Many words in the KJV now mean a completely different thing than they did when the KJV was translated.  For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7)  To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25. Anyway, the point of this is to show that the older influential KJV may have made no mistake in it’s rendering of proskyneo (Gk) and hishtachawah (Heb) as “worship” because back then, that English word “worship” was sometimes used as meaning simply to “honour” or “bow down” before.   Today, the meaning of this English word has changed to limit the meaning to divine worship.  However, back in the 1600's, that word was used of any human lord, nobles, or magistrates.  We still see traces of the old meaning in such things as calling mayors, Justices of the Peace and magistrates in Commonwealth Realms as “Your worship.” The English language has changed.  And so more and more accurate translations are breaking away from tradition and are using “worship” with reference to Jesus.

Hi David:

Thanks for this post. It should help all of us understand this.

[942767]

Quote (david @ Jan. 16 2009,17:48)

Quote It would be easier for me if Jesus had adamantly rejected the worship of men and directed them to worship the Father when they where worshipping him. –seeking The thing is, Seeking, we don't know anyone was “worshipping” him.  The word found in Greek that is often translated wrongly is proskyneo (or something like that.)  It's basic meaning is to bow down.  It can mean many things including worship.  It's up to the translator to translate that word which way they like depending on how great their trinitarian bias is. A lot of this has to do with the influential King James Version.  First, it should be pointed out that when we insert the word “worship” where it clearly doesn’t belong–we get the wrong meaning. MARK 15:19 (New King James Version) “Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.” Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar.  Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him.  The verse before (Mark 15:18) and Matthew 27:29 make clear that they “made fun” of him.  It was in a mocking way that they did “obeisance to him,” bowing to him.  They were not worshiping him and the context certainly doesn’t allow proskynéo to be translated as “worship” here. CLEARLY, IT SHOULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRANSLATED AS “WORSHIP.” The following was taken from a thread dealing with whether or not Jesus was “worshipped.”  I found it very interesting: THE ENGLISH WORD “WORSHIP” USED TO CARRY ANOTHER MEANING WHICH IS OBSOLETE TODAY The older KJV renders proskyneo as “worship” in every case.  But it should be noted, that back then, the English word “worship” also carried another connotation that it doesn’t today, an obsolete definition of worship: “To honour; to regard or treat with honour or respect. To treat with signs of honour or respect; to salute, bow down to. To honour with gifts. To invest with, raise to, honour or repute; to confer honour or dignity upon.” (The encyclopaedic Oxford English Dictionary) And so, back then, when the KJV was made, that English word “worship” may have been the right choice.  But the English language has changed.  Many words in the KJV now mean a completely different thing than they did when the KJV was translated.  For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7)  To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25. Anyway, the point of this is to show that the older influential KJV may have made no mistake in it’s rendering of proskyneo (Gk) and hishtachawah (Heb) as “worship” because back then, that English word “worship” was sometimes used as meaning simply to “honour” or “bow down” before.   Today, the meaning of this English word has changed to limit the meaning to divine worship.  However, back in the 1600's, that word was used of any human lord, nobles, or magistrates.  We still see traces of the old meaning in such things as calling mayors, Justices of the Peace and magistrates in Commonwealth Realms as “Your worship.” The English language has changed.  And so more and more accurate translations are breaking away from tradition and are using “worship” with reference to Jesus.

Hi David:

Is the source of this article that you copied from another thread stated in that thread? I would like to know the source because it would help to explain this to others.

Jesus said:

Quote

Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

And so, he stated that men should honour him. Not worship him as God.

[david]

Quote

Is the source of this article that you copied from another thread stated in that thread?  I would like to know the source because it would help to explain this to others.

Hi 94.

In the “worship” thread, I was able to find somewhere where I posted this before (on page 57) but did not find the source. But the info you were looking at was taken from Sammo's website, because this is what I wrote on page 57:

The truth is, I have no idea which of these words I wrote or changed.  Most likely, it is a compolation of 10 or 15 articles.  I know some of it came from Sammo or an earlier post by Sammo or Sammo's website (the different renderings in the middle of the post.)  Also, the paragraph on the obsolete word worship, also Sammo's website.
]https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….I]

You can try looking in that thread, before page 57.  I'm not sure what the link is to Sammo's site.  I'll try to find it.

[gollamudi]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 16 2009,04:15)

martian….Amen brother, if we don't see Jesus as a simple human being just like us we are pushing him away from our real identity, Saying he preexisted as some kind of super being or what ever, Separates Him from our exact identity. Good post brother. love and peace to you and yours……………..gene

Amen from my side also brothers Martian and Gene. Wonderful posts they are.

Love to you
Adam

[SEEKING]

Gene,

you wrote:

“To use John 1:1 as a proof text of Jesus being God ,you even in your mind have to change the Actual meaning of the word (WORD) to mean a person right.”

Many are adamant that, word (logos) here has to mean what it generally means – speech, thought, sometnig spoken, etc.

If we are trying to understand what John meant “word” to be in Jn.1:1 is it not best to allow the biblical context to decide that?

John interprets his meaning of “word” for us:

John 1:14 (KJV)
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.

JN 1:14 (NIV) The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

There is no mistaking “who” Johne meant. He uses the terms
“made flesh” “dwelt among us” “we beheld” “the only begotten of the father.” These terms can hardly be applied
correctly to thoughts, ideas, verbal words, etc. -in this context. It seems quite clear, John changed the meaning of the WORD WORD to mean a person – JESUS!

Seeking

[martian]

One of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used. Especially by the same author. If Word/Logos literally means Jesus in John 1 then it should mean Jesus everywhere else in scripture.
36 times Logos is used in the Book of John. they translate the first four times as meaning Jesus. What about the other 32 times it is used? This is in the same book and the same author! By what authority do they translate 4 verses one way and 32 another? This does not even take into consideration over 300 other times Logos is used in the New Testament with the meaning always as an expressed idea or intention.

In the following verses in John, I have inserted a question after the English word translated from Logos.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 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.
Joh 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word(Jesus or statement/idea?) which Jesus had said.
Joh 4:37 And herein is that saying(Jesus or statement/idea?) true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
Joh 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying(Jesus or statement/idea?) of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
Joh 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word;
Joh 4:50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word(Jesus or statement/idea?) that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,(Jesus or statement/idea? )and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word (Jesus or statement/idea?)abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying(Jesus or statement/idea?); who can hear it?
Joh 7:36 What manner of saying(Jesus or statement/idea?) is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?
Joh 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying(Jesus or statement/idea?), said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word(Jesus or statement/idea?), then are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word (Jesus or statement/idea?)hath no place in you. even because ye cannot hear my word.(Jesus or statement/idea?)
Joh 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying,(Jesus or statement/idea?)he shall never see death.
Joh 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, (Jesus or statement/idea?)he shall never taste of death.
Joh 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. (Jesus or statement/idea?)
Joh 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. (Jesus or statement/idea?)
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word (Jesus or statement/idea?)of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 12:38 That the saying(Jesus or statement/idea?) of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, (Jesus or statement/idea?)hath one that judgeth him: the word (Jesus or statement/idea?)that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words:(Jesus or statement/idea?) and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:(Jesus or statement/idea?) and the word(Jesus or statement/idea?) which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word (Jesus or statement/idea?)which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 15:20 Remember the word (Jesus or statement/idea?)that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, (Jesus or statement/idea?)they will keep yours also.
Joh 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word (Jesus or statement/idea?)might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. (Jesus or statement/idea?)
Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; (Jesus or statement/idea?)and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word(Jesus or statement/idea?)is truth.
Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (Jesus or statement/idea?)
Joh 18:9 That the saying (Jesus or statement/idea?)might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
Joh 18:32 That the saying (Jesus or statement/idea?)of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
Joh 19:8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying,(Jesus or statement/idea?) he was the more afraid;
Joh 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, (Jesus or statement/idea?)he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
Joh 21:23 Then went this saying (Jesus or statement/idea?)abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

How about I John?

Logos Count: 6

1Jo 1:1 That 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 (Jesus or expressed idea/statement?) of life;
1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word (Jesus or expressed idea/statement?) is not in us.
1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, (Jesus or expressed idea/statement?) in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1Jo 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word (Jesus or expressed idea/statement?) which ye have heard from the beginning.
1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word (Jesus or expressed idea/statement?) of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, (Jesus or expressed idea/statement?) neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

How about Revelation”
Logos Count: 17

Re 1:2 Who bare record of the word (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?) of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)that he saw.
Re 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words (Jesus or expresed idea/plan
/statement?)of this prophecy, and keep those things (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Re 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Re 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)and hast not denied my name.
Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Re 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Re 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Re 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of God shall be fulfilled.
Re 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of God.
Re 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of God.
Re 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Re 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)are true and faithful.
Re 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)which must shortly be done.
Re 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of the prophecy of this book.
Re 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of this book: worship God.
Re 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?) of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things (Jesus or expresed idea/plan/statement?)which are written in this book.

Can you see that the definition of Logos = Jesus cannot work in the rest of scripture? The question still remains – By what authority do they translate these few in John a couple in I John and a couple in Revelation differently then the remaining 350 times it is used in scripture? Does their doctrine of the Trinity give them the authority to translate a few verses diferently then the overwhelming majority of verses?

God has used Logos over 350 times with clear meaning of a statement, expressed idea, plan, motive or intention. This is in complete agreement with the functional and relational way in which Hebrews thought and wrote.

[martian]

It is curious that those that claim Jesus is a coequal God with YHWH ignor these verses —

(1 Cor. 15/22-28 ) For just as in Adam all people die, in the same way also all people will be made alive in the Anointed One (Christ). But each one will do so by his own arrangement. The Anointed One was a first fruit. After that, those who were the Anointed One's in his presence. (those alive at Jesus’ time) Then the end will come, when he will have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father, when he will have neutralized all rule and all authority and power. For it is necessary for him to be king until indeed he has placed all of his enemies under his feet. Death, the last enemy has been stripped of power for he has arranged all things under his feet. But when it is said all things are arranged under him, it is a given that the one(Yahweh) who arranged all things under him (Jesus) is excepted. But when he has arranged all things under him, then also the son himself will arrange himself under the one (Yahweh) who arranged everything under him, so that God may be everything in everything.
First: “For just as in Adam” Jesus is compared to Adam. MAN (Adam) COMPARED TO MAN (the anointed one, Jesus). Not in a small way like Adam but “just as”
Jesus is the first fruit. This is significant because if there is a first fruit there must be more fruit to come. The fruit to follow is referring to us. Again relating that we are the same fruit as Jesus. The only difference is when we are harvested.
Second: Jesus as king is not an eternal position. Jesus was made king at His resurrection and continues to be king for a specific period of time until all his enemies are under his feet.
Third: Jesus arranges himself under Yahweh. This clearly denies the possibility of them existing as co-equal beings.
Fourth: Jesus is refered to as the Anointed one. This again proves his humanity, because God does not need anointing but man does. If he was a co-equal God he needs no anointing from another God.
Fifth; Jesus the man is king of all the earth and it’s peoples.

[SEEKING]

You wrote:

One of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used.

An even more basic tenant of interpretation is that context determines meaning.

Your volumes of passages do not and cannot negate what John wrote:

John 1:14 (KJV)
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.

None of your definitions of “word” can become flesh, dwell among us, nor its glory beheld. That glory is identified by John as “the only begotten of the Father. and who is that?

So you really believe it was a “statement or idea” that became flesh, dwelt among us, had glory to behold, and was the only begotten of the father, do you!

Seeking

[martian]

Quote (SEEKING @ Jan. 18 2009,13:36)

You wrote: One of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used. An even more basic tenant of interpretation is that context determines meaning. Your volumes of passages do not and cannot negate what John wrote: John 1:14 (KJV)   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. None of your definitions of “word” can become flesh, dwell among us, nor its glory beheld.  That glory is identified by John as “the only begotten of the Father.  and who is that? So you really believe it was a “statement or idea” that became flesh, dwelt among us, had glory to behold, and was the only begotten of the father, do you! Seeking

Yes because that is what it says. D you deny the definition of the word “logos”? It is no different then if you and your mate had a plan to have children. The idea and concept is formed lang before the actual event takes place. God had a plan for mankind from the beginning. The most important part of that plan was to have an example for mankind of the character of God in a full human being. A human from his own self even as Adam came directly from him. (Second Adam)
When the time was right God brought his plan into fruition through the human woman Mary His idea became flesh and we beheld his glory.

Let me ask you —
Do you believe it is God's plan for mankind to become like Jesus?

If so are you going to become a God or dual natued?
Are you a God that somehow stopped being a God and became a man?
Can you tell me which of Christ qualities are attributal to his humanity and which to his deity?
Can an eternal omniscient immortal everlasting all powerfull and perfect God become failable temptable mortal?

[martian]

Quote (SEEKING @ Jan. 18 2009,13:36)

You wrote: One of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used. An even more basic tenant of interpretation is that context determines meaning. Your volumes of passages do not and cannot negate what John wrote: John 1:14 (KJV)   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. None of your definitions of “word” can become flesh, dwell among us, nor its glory beheld.  That glory is identified by John as “the only begotten of the Father.  and who is that? So you really believe it was a “statement or idea” that became flesh, dwelt among us, had glory to behold, and was the only begotten of the father, do you! Seeking

Yes — And your insistance on changing the meanng of logos cannot change the fact that the meaning is confirmed over 360 times in scripture (which you ignor) amd thousands of times in Greek literature of the time. (which you ignor)
AND the only authority you have for such a change is your preconcieved idea of doctrine. You have found a difficult or ambigous scripture and forced a meaning out of it that fits what you aready believe rather then seeking the real meaning of the verse. You have depended on English translations rather then seeking the real language of the scriptures.
Funny you do not seem to be seeking anything other then what you have already found and decided upon.

[martian]

In Revelation (also written by John) He makes it clear that the plan of God/His idea was something separate from the fulfillment of that plan.

Rev 1: 2
who testified to the word (logos) of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

John was witness to the overall plan of God, of God’s expression of his idea and to the fulfillment of that idea in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s plan but a plan is not literally a person.

[Author]

Posts