- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hello, Marty,
I agree with traditional Trinitarian thinking which does argue Jn. 1 is affirming the Deity of Christ. “And the Word was God…” I think that makes it pretty clear the passage is saying Christ is in fact God. It doesn’t say “in the form of God” or anything like that. Also, as I have said before, I don’t understand how something could be “in the form of God” and not God. “In the form of” is not a traditional theological c or contemporary theological concept, anyway.
‘Word” or “Logos” had ancient meanings beyond mere speech. “Word” also means Reason.
True, in the OT there is no reference to the “Word” as involved in creation or at any other part. Hence, the Logos is a much later concept, found only in the NT. That’s why it’s called the NT; it introduces new concepts and then is bound to clash with the OT.
The reason why I keep insisting on the “ambiguity” of Scripture is because it is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. As I have said many times, it provides but snap shots of God which often conflict, leaving us, the readers, to task of piecing it all together. The Trinity is especially problematic in this regard. If there are biblical passages that clearly imply it, there are others, such as those suggesting the subordinate status of the Son to the Father, or that both Son and Father are both two distinct full-blown personalities, that suggest otherwise.
hoghead,
One point I was attempting to make in the other thread before our communications were became troubled is that Philo claimed that in LXX when theos does not have a direct article preceding it then it is a synonym of the logos (the Word). In John 1:1 John uses the word theos without a direct object preceding it which means according to Philo he is essentially claiming the Word is the Word. I short interpreting John 1:1 according to Philo’s point of view it is not evidence the Christ is God or that he is preexistent.
Philo never wrote anything on Christ, probably did not know anything about him, and never wrote or knew anything about the Gospel of John. Therefore, he is actually completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
hoghead,
I have to disagree with you because Philo did write about the Koine Greek language and its relationship to the logos. John either used those words to teach about the Christ or he and Philo obtained there idea from a similar source.
My point was to reveal that point of view of at least one human from that time period there is no evidence of either the claim that Jesus preexisted his own conception or that he the Christ is God. All you have to oppose his view is the Trinitarian relation that arose later and evolved to its final state by the end of the fourth century.
There is absolutely no evidence that the writer of John was influenced by Philo in any way whatsoever. There is really no comparison between the two, as Philo is essentially Platonic, whereas the Bible is not.
The true meaning of the word ‘God’?
Perhaps easy.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
‘Where can I go to go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into Heaven you are there, if I make my bed in Sheol, behold you are there.’
‘If you have seen me, you have seen the Father’.
Have you seen Jesus, have you heard Jesus?
Hello, Mia,
True, on one hand, it is that easy. On the other, it isn’t. The problem is how the three members of teh Trinity can be best thought of so as to constitute one God. Many wills ay that the Trinity denotes three separate, unique personalities. This is thinking of the Trinity in term of teh modern concept or definition o f the term “person.” The problem is that any teaching that claims three subjectivities within the Godhead automatically degenerates into tritheism. The original Trinitarian concept of “person,” however, denoted something much closer to our modern idea of a role. One personality, three roles, yes, that does work well. So, when you ask someone, anyone, if they have seen Jesus, the first thing you should do is be clear on how you are defining the members of the Trinity.
Hello Hoghead 🙂
The problem is how the three members of teh Trinity can be best thought of so as to constitute one God.
One possibility is to see different parts of the one God. As I said to a friend; you could be walking (feet), stretching (arms) and thinking (mind).
The original Trinitarian concept of “person,” however, denoted something much closer to our modern idea of a role. One personality, three roles, yes, that does work well.
Yes.
So, when you ask someone, anyone, if they have seen Jesus, the first thing you should do is be clear on how you are defining the members of the Trinity
So, “have you seen the Son of God” would be the definitive question.
Hi,
Bear in mind I am not necessarily a Trinitarian (yet!!!) I’m only seeing things from a completely Trinitarian and Oneness perspective, because they could have some merit.
Hello, Mia,
Actually, I’m not really sure there is any way to appropriately put the question. With fellow Christians, it can be an annoying question, analogous to asking someone, “Are you a loyal American?” I find that quite often someone who comes up and just starts asking something like, “Have you accepted Christ as your personal Savior”? generally is coming from a kind of right-wing Christian background and wants to sell you, Christian or otherwise, on fundamentalaistic ideology. Hence, the real question should be, “Do you go with Christian fundamentalism or the evangelical movement? ” Usually those representing such movements are fairly intolerant of others, Christians or not, who don’t follow fundamentalism. They really don’t want any responsible theological dialogue. No matter what you say, if you are not a fundamentalist, you are doomed to hell, according to them.
Hello again, Miia,
I’m kind of lost where you are coming from. You say you aren’t a Trinitarian but that you are working from a Trinitarian and Oneness perspective. On my end of it, I hear you contradicting yourself. If you aren’t Trinitarian, how can you be working from a Trinitarian and Oneness perspective? Are you Oneness Pentecostal maybe ? If so, that is still Trinitarian. I realize some unreflective Christians have torn into the Oneness movement, claiming it isn’t truly Trinitarian because it understands the persons as modes or roles God plays. But, as I pointed out, the original Trinitarian concept of person denoted more of a role than a person in our sense of the term. Also, many contemporary Trinitarian theologians go with what some would call modalism. I also know that many unreflective Christians go on and on about the “heresy” of modalism. However, I take that with a grain of salt. The church fathers could be very modalistic. That includes Tertullian, who supposedly attacked the modalistic thinking of Sabellius. So, if you are Oneness in the sense I am using the term, I would label you as a Trinitarian.
Yes, Miia, that is exactly what I have in mind. Also, thinks for clarifying where you are in regard to the Trinity. I gather you are in the process of considering options.
Hi hoghead,
Yes the divisions of men are preferable to those who dare not believe the spiritual words.
Hi HH,
Yes, considering the options. I have been an arian/ unitatian but was talking to family and others and I’m seeking truth and looking at things through their perspective. I also find the Eastern Orthodox quotes quite true, and wondered about their belief in the Trinity. Sorry I haven’t had much time to reply, though I’m reading 🙂
Hi HH,
Yes, considering the options. I have been an arian/ unitatian but was talking to family and others and I’m seeking truth and looking at things through their perspective. I also find the Eastern Orthodox quotes quite true, and wondered about their belief in the Trinity. Sorry I haven’t had much time to reply, though I’m reading
Hi Miia,
If you’re willing to consider the possibility that “The Trinity” may be correct,
why not consider the possibility both views might be part of a bigger truth:(I explain this concept in the following thread…)
____________
God bless
Ed JSorry, Nick, no time to respond to your post. As I just said, too busy studying Scripture to bother with the divisiveness caused by men such as yourself.
Thank you Hoghead1 (Locomotive Engineer),
I also read the posts of people that are here to discourse with.
I have studied the bible for over 40 years, and in that time
I have discovered that the proof of God’s existence has
been encoded into the “AKJV Bible” as “Proof of God”My presentation is now perfected to the point of doing you-tube videos.
I have presented most of the information in “snippet form” on
forums like H-net, my forum (Holy City Bible Code Forum),
and quite a few others as well going on 7 years now.http://holycitybiblecode.forumotion.co.nz/t227-god-s-existence-has-now-finally-been-proven
____________
God bless
Ed JHello, Ed,
Sounds interesting. However, I’m not sure I quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying there is some sort of hidden code or in the KJV? If so, which KJV? The 1611? I’m going to guess ahead of time, no, here, as the actual KJV 1611 had the Apocrypha and also is pretty unreadable to modern-day readers. Between the 1611 and the KJV today, there are about 20,000 changes in word usage, punctuation, etc. I’m also unsure how you are using the term “proof for God.” Just saying,”But, man, the Bible says so” is not a “proof” for God. Hence, in theology and philosophy, “proofs” for the existence of God generally proceed in a much different direction.
Hi Hoghead1,
“The Authorized King James Version” which consists of the standard 66 books; The “AKJV Bible”
can be purchased in any book store, and is FREE of all copyright laws and FREE on-line.The Apocrypha and the deuterocanonical books are considered non-inspired.
Did you read Clement1 (The first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians)?
(biblical ref. to Philip 4:3) Clement2 was not written by Clement._____________
God bless
Ed J
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
