- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,01:40)
Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.He believed the “logos” to be the expressed thought or word of God, therefore implying Jesus is the thought or plan of God that came into existance at his birth. Hence becoming the firstborn of God. He also calls the “logos” a god. Hello JWs.
This time directly from one of Philo's writings ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT
(1.215) For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son. The other is the rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man, the copy of whom, perceptible to the senses, is he who performs his paternal vows and sacrifices, to whom it is enjoined to put on the aforesaid tunic, the representation of the universal heaven, in order that the world may join with the man in offering sacrifice, and that the man may likewise co-operate with the universe.
Quote Also as you should already know, the question of John gettting his concept of the “Logos” from Philo or vica versa is unknown.
Vice-versa would not be possible. Philo died 40 years before the Gospel of John was written. These leaves only 2 possibilities: (1)the writer of GoJ was influencd by Philo and his contemporaries and/or (2) the writer of GoJ was similarly inspired by God to apply logos to Yeshua.To CB;
I would like all of you to consider John 1:1 in a new light. Jesus said the seed was the Word of God in the parable of the sower. Peter said we have been born again by the incorruptible seed, the word of God. Genesis says God made all things and its “seed” was in itself. Paul said God's eternal power and Godhead may be explained by the things which he has made. When John says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and was God, might he be saying that the seed of eternal life (the Word) was in God. Christ was begotten of God of his Word, he is the seed of God and also the seed of Abraham. The Word was in God just as an apple's seed is in an apple. It is accurate to say the same is with the apple. I'm seeing that John 1:1 isn't referring to Christ but to God almighty and all that is begotten by him.
Later in the passage the scripture says that he came to his own. Jesus said that they were his Father's and were given to him from his Father. The Father was in the world in Christ Jesus. Jesus said that the Father was in him and he doeth the works.
kejonn
You said…
Quote
Are you sure you want to take the word of 600 modern Greek scholars who did not write in the Greek that Philo did? Since Philo wrote in the same Greek that the NT writers did, it would seem he would have a huge edge over scholars who are trying to translate language that was written 1600-2000 years ago. Just look how much people today struggle with the English of the 1600-1700s!Ahhhhh. Yes I will take the word of over 600 scholars to the word of one greek philosopher.
Don’t you think they had Philos writings also?
BTW who translated Philos writings?
You said…
Quote
Yes. Can you prove that the logos of John 1:1 was anything different than what Philo philosophized?I don’t need to. I simply believe the written scriptures and what the Spirit of truth has revealed to me.
And as far as the “Logos” existing as a person before taking on the likeness of the sinful flesh ithout diminishing his nature, I think the scriptures are clear. Philo believes like you that God didn’t have a word at sometime way back in eternity. But at some time the “reason” of God became a living being. God spoke and Jesus came into existence. Even though time, space and matter was created by him, Yeshua, and for him and without him was not anything made that was made. Jn 1:3.
The burden of proof is on you. For my bible says he “The Word was God”. Since we know that God is eternal and can not change neither can the Logos, then we know that the Logos is still God.
But I will quote some of Isa 1:18s proof text in the debates thread to show that the over 600 scholars whom you doubt, to follow a philosopher, had very solid reasoning to translate John 1:1 the way they did.
Isa 1:18…
There are some reasons for this (note: some of these theme will be further developed later in later section of the post);-- The subject noun “Ho Logos” in John 1:1c is placed by John in the emphatic position (i.e. in front of the predicate noun). In Kione Greek word order is insignificant, except for emphasis. So John intended to lay the stress on the predicate noun “theos” in the statement. There is no question that John would not have done this if he wanted to somehow diminish the semantic force of “theos”. The opposite is true.
- John chose to describe the subject of John 1:1c with the Greek word “theos”. If John intended his readers to understand that Ho Logos had an attenuated divinity he could easily have achieved this by simply choosing a Greek word other than theos. The word “theios”, for instance, can be used to denote an attribute of godliness. This word choice certainly would have removed the potential misinterpretation due to lexical ambiguity. So in using “theos” John made a poor word choice. I cannot think of a single instance in the entire NT where the Greek word “theos” manifestly conveys the diminished divinity that t8 has presented, but perhaps he might know of one?
- John used the imperfect tense verb “en” (was) three times in relation to “ho Logos” in the fist 2 verses of John 1 (v1a,c and v2). “En” denotes continuous action, so this grammar forcibly affirms the Logos eternality, that He was without a beginning. So again John has made a very poor word choice if his aim was to present the subject as a lesser divinity. On the other side of the coin its what you would expect to see if absolute was in view.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….p=65739You say…
Quote
You may say “hello JWs” but you'd be off there, would you not? Do they not believe that Yeshua was the archangel Michael? So you're thinking more along the lines of Christadelphians and Biblical Unitarians.Beyond that, what proof do you have that “logos” was a separate being? I'd be interested in your response.
Nope. You are the one insisting that the “Logos” is “a god” in some sense other than true “Theos”.; Since you keep referring to “Logos” here just being a thought or Idea or saying of god, Im not sure what you believe. Its seems one day you side with the “Unitarains” making their argument about the “Logos” being the saying of god, and the next day siding with “JWs” making their argument that Jn 1:1c should be translated “a god”.
As far as “Logos” being a separate being, I don’t believe he is a separate being, as you know most Trinitarians don’t. You are trying to make the word into another being, by insisting that he is the result of the Father speaking. But as far as the “Logos” being a person and not the Father, I think over 40 pronouns in the first chapter of John referring to the “Logos” in 1:1 should be good enough for you since you speak of pronouns.
Again, look here and see where you can prove this not so.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….p=65739You said…
Quote
Which fathers are you speaking of? The ones who started a nasty thing called the Roman Catholic Church? The same church that deified Mary? The same that says we must confess sins to other men rather than through our mediator, Christ, thereby putting back up the temple veil that was torn in two?In a word, yes, over these fathers I'd take his word.
There we go. Weak.
Because the RCC fell into error on some things does not mean they still didn’t have some truth. Is this just to make your argument look stronger by appealing to this same weak argument that the “Antagonist” of the trinty do? Kejonn, the trinity was around before the creeds. The church Fathers I am speaking of is the writers of the NT and their closest contemporaries John and Ignatius for example.You said…
Quote Yes, but can you show me the difference beyond one sticking point: “the Word became flesh”. Philo did not know Yeshua, but he spoke much of the logos of God. John's logos is uncannily similar to Philo's logos. Philo's logos would fit in all other aspects. In fact, you can read that the logos spoke through prophets. That would fit John 1:10-11. Many of the Israelites ignored the words of the prophets. And amazingly enough, Israelites did not know of logos in the same sense that Philo used; that is, as the instrument of creation. Matches this Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
So how again does John's logos differ from the logos proposed by Philo?
Because he like you believes that the “Logos” had a beginning, as if to say there was a time when the Logos didn
’t exist. You believe God spoke and the “logos” became a person, then the Logos” speaks and creates the worlds. So did the “logos” bring birth to the “Logos that created the worlds”? When the “Logos” was speaking through the prophets, was the spoken “Logos” a person?Again I appeal to Isa 1:18s writings concerning the origins of the “Logos”…
Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos.
(source)So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contradistinction in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375Jesus who is named the “Logos” is the logos because he is God and his words are the words of God. This is why he is the “Eternal Life” that was with the Father. 1 Jn 1:1,2. He laid the foundations of the earth by his “Logos”. Heb 1:10
Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;Col 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.Isaiah 43:10-11
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he:before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.The above flies in the face of those who says the “Logos” Yeshua came into being as a result of a “thought” or “saying” of God.
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 07 2007,00:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,01:40)
Hint Philo believed “logos” was the divine reason.He believed the “logos” to be the expressed thought or word of God, therefore implying Jesus is the thought or plan of God that came into existance at his birth. Hence becoming the firstborn of God. He also calls the “logos” a god. Hello JWs.
This time directly from one of Philo's writings ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT
(1.215) For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son. The other is the rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man, the copy of whom, perceptible to the senses, is he who performs his paternal vows and sacrifices, to whom it is enjoined to put on the aforesaid tunic, the representation of the universal heaven, in order that the world may join with the man in offering sacrifice, and that the man may likewise co-operate with the universe.
Quote Also as you should already know, the question of John gettting his concept of the “Logos” from Philo or vica versa is unknown.
Vice-versa would not be possible. Philo died 40 years before the Gospel of John was written. These leaves only 2 possibilities: (1)the writer of GoJ was influencd by Philo and his contemporaries and/or (2) the writer of GoJ was similarly inspired by God to apply logos to Yeshua.
kejonnAs far as the Word/Logos having a beginning see above.
As far as visa versa goes. It is possible. You dont know how long John believed the “Logos” was God. Remember he heard Thomas say “My Lord and My God” long before he penned the words. When he penned John 1:1 is not proof that Philo couldn't have borrowed his understanding from John in some way.
One lecturer says
For two writers may be entirely Independent of each other, and may yet express themselves in an almost identical way. There are terms and ideas which belong to the atmosphere of an age; they have come, no one knows whence, and have become the symbols current modes of thought. We do not for example, prove that the writer of the fourth Gospel borrowed from Philo, because both speak of the “Logos” as a manifestation of God. We are safe in saying that the term belonged to the age, but not that the one writer borrowed from the other…
The Philosophical Basis of Religion: A Series of Lectures
By John Watson Pg 195
http://books.google.com/books?i….A195,M1You have no proof that Johns use of Logos in John 1:1 is related to Philos use of Logos.
Speculation.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,14:14) Ahhhhh. Yes I will take the word of over 600 scholars to the word of one greek philosopher. Don’t you think they had Philos writings also?
BTW who translated Philos writings?
Was Philo merely a Greek philosopher? You would like to label him as such because it would detract from his worth in this debate, but the fact is, he was a Jew who knew the OT well.In this case, a fellow name Yonge translated Philo's writings. But the passage I have provided in light of “ho theos” and God's ancient word is so applicable to John 1:1 that its almost scary.
But as I said before, who are you going to believe, 600 scholars who are doing their best to translate 1st century Koine Greek that was written 1900 years ago, or one who spoke and wrote in it during the time period? Who is more proficient in a language, a native or someone who has learned a a language as a second or third? I think you know the answer.
Quote You said… Quote
Yes. Can you prove that the logos of John 1:1 was anything different than what Philo philosophized?I don’t need to. I simply believe the written scriptures and what the Spirit of truth has revealed to me.
Yes, for your own sake, you don't need to because no matter what evidence is placed before you, you will not admit the validity of it because it disagrees with what you believe. That's fine. Admirable, but stubborn.Let me ask you: how does Philo's logos differ from John's? I asked this already but you say it is up to me to prove. I don't see any difference, so what must I prove? By me asking first and you turning around and not answering, I think it is fair to say that you don't have an answer.
Quote And as far as the “Logos” existing as a person before taking on the likeness of the sinful flesh ithout diminishing his nature, I think the scriptures are clear. Philo believes like you that God didn’t have a word at sometime way back in eternity. But at some time the “reason” of God became a living being. God spoke and Jesus came into existence. Even though time, space and matter was created by him, Yeshua, and for him and without him was not anything made that was made. Jn 1:3. The burden of proof is on you. For my bible says he “The Word was God”. Since we know that God is eternal and can not change neither can the Logos, then we know that the Logos is still God.
Ahh, but you fail to see one very important thing, and that is this verse:Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
“Born” is not the same as “made”. One is created, the other is begotten. So John 1:3 does not exclude that the Word was not begotten of God. And because the Word sprang forth directly from God, it can be said to have been God because logos came directly from God. But we still have the idea that there is “logos en theos” (“Word was god”) in John 1:1, and “autos einai theos” (“he was a god”) in Acts 28:6. Why the difference?
Since the “scholars” did not address why Acts 28:6 was not translated “He was God”, I find them desperately wanting. Thus, I have snipped the “prooftext”.
Quote You say… Quote
You may say “hello JWs” but you'd be off there, would you not? Do they not believe that Yeshua was the archangel Michael? So you're thinking more along the lines of Christadelphians and Biblical Unitarians.Beyond that, what proof do you have that “logos” was a separate being? I'd be interested in your response.
Nope. You are the one insisting that the “Logos” is “a god” in some sense other than true “Theos”.; Since you keep referring to “Logos” here just being a thought or Idea or saying of god, Im not sure what you believe. Its seems one day you side with the “Unitarains” making their argument about the “Logos” being the saying of god, and the next day siding with “JWs” making their argument that Jn 1:1c should be translated “a god”.
But either or both would be valid it seems. Is a “thought” or “reason” God?Quote As far as “Logos” being a separate being, I don’t believe he is a separate being, as you know most Trinitarians don’t. You are trying to make the word into another being, by insisting that he is the result of the Father speaking. But as far as the “Logos” being a person and not the Father, I think over 40 pronouns in the first chapter of John referring to the “Logos” in 1:1 should be good enough for you since you speak of pronouns.
Wait a minute. Did you make a typo here? Are you saying that logos is not a separate being but he is a person? How can this be? This is an odd statement and one that requires a suspension of all logic. Are you saying Yeshua is an appendage of God, but yet a “person” of God at the same time?Quote You said… Quote
Which fathers are you speaking of? The ones who started a nasty thing called the Roman Catholic Church? The same church that deified Mary? The same that says we must confess sins to other men rather than through our mediator, Christ, thereby putting back up the temple veil that was torn in two?In a word, yes, over these fathers I'd take his word.
There we go. Weak.
Because the RCC fell into error on some things does not mean they still didn’t have some truth. Is this just to make your argument look stronger by appealing to this same weak argument that the “Antagonist” of the trinty do? Kejonn, the trinity was around before the creeds. The church Fathers I am speaking of is the writers of the NT and their closest contemporaries John and Ignatius for example.
My response was weak? Yours falls far shorter. I like this one “Because the RCC fell into error on some things does not mean they still didn’t have some truth”. So, which things are truth — those that agree with your theology?As far as “closet” contemporaries go, I don't have to go too far to show that t
hese men often said that the Father is the true God. So where does this leave your support of them? I know what you'll say “But they didn't do so to the exclusion of Jesus”. Haha! I like Trinitarians…they can see “one God, the Father” and look for Jesus being mentioned anywhere within the next few sentences to say “see, there he is! Still God”. Its almost as if you just can't see it any other way. But again, its your “truth” (although it rearranges scripture) so I understand.Quote Because he like you believes that the “Logos” had a beginning, as if to say there was a time when the Logos didn’t exist. You believe God spoke and the “logos” became a person, then the Logos” speaks and creates the worlds. So did the “logos” bring birth to the “Logos that created the worlds”? When the “Logos” was speaking through the prophets, was the spoken “Logos” a person?
Did I say that? Maybe I did somewhere, but I was wrong if so…no, I agree with the scripture that says Yeshua is the “firstborn of all creation”. Let me ask you, is God “born”? Then how can Yeshua, who is supposed to be God and co-eternal to all extremes, be “firstborn”? To be born means you have a beginning. There is just no way around that verse.And as far as the spoken logos being a person for the prophets, how would it be any different than the Holy Spirit speaking in us?
Quote Again I appeal to Isa 1:18s writings concerning the origins of the “Logos”… Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse John 1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos.
(source)So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contradistinction in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375
All falls flat in the face of “firstborn of all creation”. Would that Paul had not written those words, but alas, he had. I repeat once more, “firstborn” means Yeshua had a beginning but the true God is unbegotten.Quote Jesus who is named the “Logos” is the logos because he is God and his words are the words of God. This is why he is the “Eternal Life” that was with the Father. 1 Jn 1:1,2. He laid the foundations of the earth by his “Logos”. Heb 1:10 Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;Col 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Is he before the Father? Do tell, I look for an answer that fits your theology.Quote Isaiah 43:10-11
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he:before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
You're right. No God before YHWH, no God after him. But there were plenty of “gods”. And the power to save rests in the Father's hands. “For God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son”. The only One with power to save sent his Son to be salvation for us. This verse does absolutely nothing to support Trinitarianism.Quote The above flies in the face of those who says the “Logos” Yeshua came into being as a result of a “thought” or “saying” of God. “firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,15:18) As far as visa versa goes. It is possible. You dont know how long John believed the “Logos” was God. Remember he heard Thomas say “My Lord and My God” long before he penned the words. When he penned John 1:1 is not proof that Philo couldn't have borrowed his understanding from John in some way.
Well, since Philo borrowed “logos” from earlier Greek philosphers and applied it to his God, the God of Israel, the likelihood is very, very low. Some references say Philo died as early as 40 CE, which is only 7-10 years after Yeshua died. Considering that John's Gospel did not come out until 90 CE…well, I think you get the picture.Quote One lecturer says For two writers may be entirely Independent of each other, and may yet express themselves in an almost identical way. There are terms and ideas which belong to the atmosphere of an age; they have come, no one knows whence, and have become the symbols current modes of thought. We do not for example, prove that the writer of the fourth Gospel borrowed from Philo, because both speak of the “Logos” as a manifestation of God. We are safe in saying that the term belonged to the age, but not that the one writer borrowed from the other…
And I said as much. But if there was some “borrowing” going on, Philo was not borrowing from the writer of GoJ.Quote You have no proof that Johns use of Logos in John 1:1 is related to Philos use of Logos.
No, but they are fantastically similar. You have shown no real evidence that they are dissimilar. List each point and I should be able to show the close likeness in Philo's writings. Philo even calls the divine word God's firstborn son. How's that for similarity to the extreme?WJ;
Was the Word made Flesh or was Christ the Word? The seed is the Word of God. John said that which was begotten was “of” the word of life, not the word of life. The Word which includes the doctrine of God did not belong to Jesus according to Jesus own teaching. Was not Christ begotten of God, of the Word of God? Here is an interesting paradox for you, as a good trinitarian you believe that Christ was eternally begotten, disregard the impossibility of the doctrine momentarily. If Christ according to your doctrine was eternally begotten then how could he not have been begotten by the Word of life? By the way, does the scripture say I have eternally begotten you, or “this day” have I begotten you?
Steven
kejonn
You said…
Quote Was Philo merely a Greek philosopher? You would like to label him as such because it would detract from his worth in this debate, but the fact is, he was a Jew who knew the OT well. In this case, a fellow name Yonge translated Philo's writings. But the passage I have provided in light of “ho theos” and God's ancient word is so applicable to John 1:1 that its almost scary.
But as I said before, who are you going to believe, 600 scholars who are doing their best to translate 1st century Koine Greek that was written 1900 years ago, or one who spoke and wrote in it during the time period? Who is more proficient in a language, a native or someone who has learned a language as a second or third? I think you know the answer.
Well this is what you said about this Greek philosopher.
“Philo did not know Yeshua, but he spoke much of the logos of God.”
So no, I still would rather believe the translations we have. You can cast doubt on the scriptures, the current translations kejonn all you want. If you can do this on one point then why not others?
You said…
Quote
Yes, for your own sake, you don't need to because no matter what evidence is placed before you, you will not admit the validity of it because it disagrees with what you believe. That's fine. Admirable, but stubborn.Let me ask you: how does Philo's logos differ from John's? I asked this already but you say it is up to me to prove. I don't see any difference, so what must I prove? By me asking first and you turning around and not answering, I think it is fair to say that you don't have an answer.
I see. So because I don’t agree with you I am stubborn. I suppose the over 600 scholars was stubborn also?
I have shown you the difference if you go back and read. Philo like you believes the “Logos” had a beginning. The “Logos” is “a god”. Johns use of the “Logos” in no way implies such.
The Logos that was with God and was God had no beginning For again “Time, Space, Matter was created by him and for him. If he is before all things, that includes time which means he has no beginning. You have no scripture to prove the Logos had a beginning. You try to say the “Logos” was born. Well the “Logos was God” and still is since God can not change and neither can the “Eternal Logos”
You said…
Quote
Ahh, but you fail to see one very important thing, and that is this verse:Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
“Born” is not the same as “made”. One is created, the other is begotten. So John 1:3 does not exclude that the Word was not begotten of God. And because the Word sprang forth directly from God, it can be said to have been God because logos came directly from God.
Straw! I have seen you throw this scripture around before. But, you fail to look at the context.
Col 1:
15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
[18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.Do you believe Jesus was the first to rise from the dead?
Its obvious that Pauls meaning of firstborn is that he is first in all things not that he was “born” before he created all things. Firstborn is a term to convey his pre-eminence over all.
We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, “I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.” (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's “first-born”? Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-colossians-1-15.htmYou said…
Quote
. But we still have the idea that there is “logos en theos” (“Word was god”) in John 1:1, and “autos einai theos” (“he was a god”) in Acts 28:6. Why the difference?Since the “scholars” did not address why Acts 28:6 was not translated “He was God”, I find them desperately wanting. Thus, I have snipped the “prooftext”.
I notice you seem to “snip” scriptures when they don’t agree with you.
Why the difference Hello, the difference is the false “theos” and the true “Theos” and the use of the “Logos” in John 1:1 that was “WITH” God and “WAS God”. Hebrew scriptures clearly stated there was none beside him and none like him yet we see John with this revelation of the “Logos” who again is God for God can not change neither could the Eternal Logos.So by your logic here we should also translate the following to “a god”!
the Word was a god 1:1
a representative of a god 1:6
to become a god's children 1:12
man's will, but from a god 1:13
No man has seen a god 1:8a
the only begotten a god 1:8b
'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning' 1:1,2
'a life' rather than 'life' 1:4
'a John' rather than 'John' 1:6
kejonn, I have asked for you to present the use of the word “Theos” by any NT writer to any other being other than the Father and Yeshua in a true or positive sense.
You will find there is none. But only the so-called gods Paul speaks of which are not gods at all.
You say…
Quote
Wait a minute. Did you make a typo here? Are you saying that logos is not a separate being but he is a person? How can this be? This is an odd statement and one that requires a suspension of all logic. Are you saying Yeshua is an appendage of God, but yet a “person” of God at the same time?God is One. One God, three persons. I thought you understood the trinity? Guess not.
You say…
Quote
My response was weak? Yours falls far s
horter. I like this one “Because the RCC fell into error on some things does not mean they still didn’t have some truth”. So, which things are truth — those that agree with your theology?As far as “closet” contemporaries go, I don't have to go too far to show that these men often said that the Father is the true God. So where does this leave your support of them? I know what you'll say “But they didn't do so to the exclusion of Jesus”. Haha! I like Trinitarians…they can see “one God, the Father” and look for Jesus being mentioned anywhere within the next few sentences to say “see, there he is! Still God”. Its almost as if you just can't see it any other way. But again, its your “truth” (although it rearranges scripture) so I understand.
Whos rearranging scriptures? Its you kejonn that says you “snip” them when they don’t agree with your theology. You are trying to reinvent John 1:1 and John 20:28 and others against the experts
Trinitarians accept all scriptures as they read. Of course we don’t agree with you. You act as if you have all knowledge here and begin to condescend here. It appears you think you have such a greater understanding of the scriptures than Trinitarians or even the experts. You accuse Trinitarians as seeing it one way. Yet what are you doing? You have the nerve to say we are proud.
You said…
Quote
Did I say that? Maybe I did somewhere, but I was wrong if so…no, I agree with the scripture that says Yeshua is the “firstborn of all creation”. Let me ask you, is God “born”? Then how can Yeshua, who is supposed to be God and co-eternal to all extremes, be “firstborn”? To be born means you have a beginning. There is just no way around that verse.And as far as the spoken logos being a person for the prophets, how would it be any different than the Holy Spirit speaking in us?
Nope the Eterrnal “Logos” was not born. See above. Your implication is the “Logos” who is God, is that the “Logos”, “a god” was born when god spoke.
The Holy Spirit is a person. The “logos” that the Holy Spirit speaks, is not a person.
You said…
Quote
All falls flat in the face of “firstborn of all creation”. Would that Paul had not written those words, but alas, he had. I repeat once more, “firstborn” means Yeshua had a beginning but the true God is unbegotten.See above.
You said…
Quote
Is he before the Father? Do tell, I look for an answer that fits your theology.Nope didn’t say he is before the Father. He is before “ all things”. Paul clarifies all things…
Col 1:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.You said…
Quote
You're right. No God before YHWH, no God after him. But there were plenty of “gods”. And the power to save rests in the Father's hands. “For God so loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son”. The only One with power to save sent his Son to be salvation for us. This verse does absolutely nothing to support Trinitarianism.Yet you say that “a god” was born when God spoke and this god laid the foundations of the world.
The begotten Son was not begotten until he was born a Son. So John 3:16 supports Trinitarianism for we also believe the Word/God came down from heaven to do his Fathers will in the flesh. He truly is and was the LORD from heaven!
You said…
Quote
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”I can just see you having a fit at your computer. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it say what you want.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 07 2007,08:56) WJ; Was the Word made Flesh or was Christ the Word? The seed is the Word of God. John said that which was begotten was “of” the word of life, not the word of life. The Word which includes the doctrine of God did not belong to Jesus according to Jesus own teaching. Was not Christ begotten of God, of the Word of God? Here is an interesting paradox for you, as a good trinitarian you believe that Christ was eternally begotten, disregard the impossibility of the doctrine momentarily. If Christ according to your doctrine was eternally begotten then how could he not have been begotten by the Word of life? By the way, does the scripture say I have eternally begotten you, or “this day” have I begotten you?
Steven
Mr steveYou have never seen me say the “logos” is eternally begotten.
I believe the 'Logos” which was with God and was God is not the spoken logos. The Logos that was God took on the likeness of sinfull flesh without diminishing his nature as the Word/God, for God can not change and neither could the “Logos”.
Jesus became the Only Begotten Son of God when he came in the flesh and was born a man. There is no scripture that says Yeshua was begotten before his natural birth.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,18:30) Well this is what you said about this Greek philosopher. “Philo did not know Yeshua, but he spoke much of the logos of God.”
So no, I still would rather believe the translations we have. You can cast doubt on the scriptures, the current translations kejonn all you want. If you can do this on one point then why not others?
Because translations change, but the original Greek (hopefully)remains true? Therefore, if we have someone who actually wrote in 1st century Koine Greek say the true God is meant by “theos” preceded by an article, why do you deny? Again, Philo wrote and spoke in the same exact Greek of the NT. The translators — albeit experts — are just trying to make their best assumptions on translations at some points because languages do change with time. You can bet that Koine Greek has changed as any llanguage would in 1600-1900 years.Quote I see. So because I don’t agree with you I am stubborn. I suppose the over 600 scholars was stubborn also?
I've already show a direct quote. Curious, but why don't you address the body of the quote on “ho theos” from Philo?Quote I have shown you the difference if you go back and read. Philo like you believes the “Logos” had a beginning. The “Logos” is “a god”. Johns use of the “Logos” in no way implies such.
Please tell me what “firstborn of all creation” means.Quote The Logos that was with God and was God had no beginning For again “Time, Space, Matter was created by him and for him. If he is before all things, that includes time which means he has no beginning. You have no scripture to prove the Logos had a beginning. You try to say the “Logos” was born. Well the “Logos was God” and still is since God can not change and neither can the “Eternal Logos”
I don't say that. Scripture says “firstborn of all creation”. Why are you avoiding that verse?Quote You said… Quote
Ahh, but you fail to see one very important thing, and that is this verse:Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
“Born” is not the same as “made”. One is created, the other is begotten. So John 1:3 does not exclude that the Word was not begotten of God. And because the Word sprang forth directly from God, it can be said to have been God because logos came directly from God.
Straw! I have seen you throw this scripture around before. But, you fail to look at the context.
Col 1:
15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
[18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.Do you believe Jesus was the first to rise from the dead?
Its obvious that Pauls meaning of firstborn is that he is first in all things not that he was “born” before he created all things. Firstborn is a term to convey his pre-eminence over all.
So you say. Straw? Your answer is stubble then.Sorry, but the preeminance is tied to him being “firstborn from the dead”. THAT is the context of verse 18. Look again at 15-16:
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
I have highlighted the context: “the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created”.
The preeminence has to do with being firstborn from the dead, but his role in creation came after he was begotten from God. Yet you refuse to cople the two…you instead want to link both instances of “firstborn” to his preeminence. You do this at the sake of context. Trinitarians ignore context quite frequently so scripture will fit their doctrine, rather than making their doctrine fit scripture.
Quote We can find other examples which show us this same principle as well. God said concerning David, “I also shall make him my first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.” (Psalm 89:27). In what sense was David made God's “first-born”? Not in the sense that He was born before his brothers. The Scriptures are quite plain that David had older brothers. Nor was this just an indication of God's intention to make sure all the other kings of the earth were born after David. But, as the Psalm itself states, it was an announcement of God's intention to exalt David higher than all the kings of the earth.
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-colossians-1-15.htm
Yes, firstborn for David meant his status as a king in God's eyes. The context says as much so no problem. Yet the context of Col 1:15-16 states that “firstborn” is in relation to his role as creator of all things. Yet this role was as the instrument of God.Isa 55:11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
Please show me where the logos in the OT was a separate entity rather than the instrument for God in action.
Quote You said… Quote
. But we still have the idea that there is “logos en theos” (“Word was god”) in John 1:1, and “autos einai theos” (“he was a god”) in Acts 28:6. Why the difference?Since the “scholars” did not address why Acts 28:6 was not translated “He was God”, I find them desperately wanting. Thus, I have snipped the “prooftext”.
I notice you seem to “snip” scriptures when they don’t agree with you.
I didn't snip any scripture. I snipped
the “opinion” of scholars.Quote Why the difference? Hello, the difference is the false “theos” and the true “Theos” and the use of the “Logos” in John 1:1 that was “WITH” God and “WAS God”. Hebrew scriptures clearly stated there was none beside him and none like him yet we see John with this revelation of the “Logos” who again is God for God can not change neither could the Eternal Logos.
Yet, no article coupled with the last instance of “theos” in either verse. So either they need to be translated similarly or someone has some 'splainin' to do.The only thing at issue is that Trinitarians are making logos out to be some “person”. Yet logos is “thought, speech, reason” etc. Why must logos here be the special occasion when logos elsewhere in the NT is not. In fact, I have never said as much but after studying Philo, I see more support than ever for the interpretation of the “and the word was divine”. After all, Philo often used the phrase “divine word” and “divine reason” for logos in his writings. And yet again we would have another similarity in GoJ.
Some quotes from Philo
“For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son.”
“Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defence of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form. “
“And, in fact, the soul which is improving does not perish as one which is wholly foolish does; for if the divine word be found by it, then again it seeks it; and he who is not pure and clean in his habits and disposition, flees from the divine word; but yet he has a fountain of water in which he washes away his vices and wickednesses, drawing from thence the fertility of the law.”
“The plain letter of the question requires no explanation, for it is exceedingly clear; but with reference to the inner meaning contained in it, there is come asperity expressed; since the divine word is full of instruction, and is a physician of the infirmity of the soul. “
“And the invisible divine reason, perceptible only by intellect, he calls the image of God. And the image of this image is that light, perceptible only by the intellect, which is the image of the divine reason, which has explained its generation.”
“And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel. (147) For which reason I was induced a little while ago to praise the principles of those who said, “We are all one man's Sons.”{43}{#ge 42:11.} For even if we are not yet suitable to be called the sons of God, still we may deserve to be called the children of his eternal image, of his most sacred word; for the image of God is his most ancient word. “
“Now passing on from these particular buildings, consider the greatest house or city, namely, this world, for you will find that God is the cause of it, by whom it was made. That the materials are the four elements, of which it is composed; that the instrument is the word of God, by means of which it was made; and the object of the building you will find to be the display of the goodness of the Creator. “
“Therefore he exhorts him who is able to run swiftly to strain onwards, without stopping to take breath, to the highest word of God, which is the fountain of wisdom, in order that by drinking of that stream he may find everlasting life instead of death. “
“For we say that the high priest is not a man, but is the word of God, who has not only no participation in intentional errors, but none even in those which are involuntary. “
“but this is the word of God, the first beginning of all things, the original species or the archetypal idea, the first measure of the universe. Moreover, that man who was to be created as a vessel is formed by a potter, was formed out of dust and clay as far as his body was concerned; but he received his soul by God breathing the breath of life into his face, so that the temperament of his nature was combined of what was corruptible and of what was incorruptible.“
Hmmmmmmm….
Quote So by your logic here we should also translate the following to “a god”! the Word was a god 1:1
a representative of a god 1:6
to become a god's children 1:12
man's will, but from a god 1:13
No man has seen a god 1:8a
the only begotten a god 1:8b
'a beginning' rather than 'the beginning' 1:1,2
'a life' rather than 'life' 1:4
'a John' rather than 'John' 1:6
kejonn, I have asked for you to present the use of the word “Theos” by any NT writer to any other being other than the Father and Yeshua in a true or positive sense.
You will find there is none. But only the so-called gods Paul speaks of which are not gods at all.
Quite right. And like I said, not perfect. But many words are translated by context. For instance, logos can be translated as “word”, “account”, “saying”, “speech”, and “thing”. In the is case, “word” is likely the best. But “theos” could have easily been translated as “godly” since this does occur.Yet, we are back to the one very glaring problem: since when is a “word” God? Please explain this, unless you are ready to take at look at how Philo uses “logos”. Very extensive, and many of the above point to the same idea as John 1.
Quote
God is One. One God, three persons. I thought you understood the trinity? Guess not. [/quote
I understand the Trinity. Show me where scripture says that God is three persons. Therein lies the biggest failing of the Trinity. “Three persons” is not supported.If I marry triplets, am I a polygamist?
Whos rearranging scriptures? Its you kejonn that says you “snip” them when they don’t agree with your theology. You are trying to reinvent John 1:1 and John 20:28 and others against the experts
Wrong. I did not snip any script
ure. I snipped the words of supposed “scholars”. Show me where I snipped scripture? In fact, I address every scripture you present if I feel you are using it to support your fallacy.Quote Trinitarians accept all scriptures as they read. Of course we don’t agree with you. You act as if you have all knowledge here and begin to condescend here. It appears you think you have such a greater understanding of the scriptures than Trinitarians or even the experts. You accuse Trinitarians as seeing it one way. Yet what are you doing? You have the nerve to say we are proud.
Now you are inserting your own words. You have yet to adequately address verses like 1 Cor 8:6. You try to spin some tale about “well there can't be just one Lord, so 'One God, the Father' is not quite right either”. That verse is the main one that trinitarians continue to dance all around.Quote
Nope the Eterrnal “Logos” was not born. See above. Your implication is the “Logos” who is God, is that the “Logos”, “a god” was born when god spoke.
“Firstborn of all creation”. If you disagree, you disagree not with me, but with scripture. “It says this, but it really means this”. Uh huh.Quote The Holy Spirit is a person. The “logos” that the Holy Spirit speaks, is not a person.
More than one logos, more than one God. Polytheism.Quote Nope didn’t say he is before the Father. He is before “ all things”. Paul clarifies all things… Col 1:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
God is invisible. So Yeshua created God? He is before all things. And if all things consist by him, this must include the Father, right?I know better.
Quote Yet you say that “a god” was born when God spoke and this god laid the foundations of the world. The begotten Son was not begotten until he was born a Son. So John 3:16 supports Trinitarianism for we also believe the Word/God came down from heaven to do his Fathers will in the flesh. He truly is and was the LORD from heaven!
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”Quote I can just see you having a fit at your computer. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it say what you want.
As I've stated before, it does not say what I want, it says what it says, and what you deny.Here are some commentaries on Col 1:15 (http://bible.cc/colossians/1-15.htm)
“Begotten before anything was made: and therefore the everlasting Son of the everlasting Father.”
“The thought is that he existed before creation began; born of God instead of being created by the divine fiat; born before any creature was called into existence. The passage does not say that he was the first created, but the first-born. He was before creation.”
“The first begotten of every creature – That is, begotten before every creature; subsisting before all worlds, before all time, from all eternity.”
“He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us.”
Seems every one of the commentators on bible.cc disagree with you. And they tend to be very Trinitarian I've found.
Stubborn.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,18:56)
Mr steveYou have never seen me say the “logos” is eternally begotten.
I believe the 'Logos” which was with God and was God is not the spoken logos. The Logos that was God took on the likeness of sinfull flesh without diminishing his nature as the Word/God, for God can not change and neither could the “Logos”.
Jesus became the Only Begotten Son of God when he came in the flesh and was born a man. There is no scripture that says Yeshua was begotten before his natural birth.
Except Col 1:15, which the commentators of bible.cc disagree with you. See my last post.Check out this guy :P. From Prototokos
Colossians 1:15 describes Jesus Christ: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Lately, some have said that firstborn here means “preeminent.” Undoubtedly it can be used as such, but its more natural meaning is “the first to open the womb.”
Creation (ktisis) “denotes a particular created thing” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 897), meaning in this case, “humans” or “humanity.” This phrase, then, could be translated: “the first born of humanity.” But was not Adam (or more technically, Cain) the firstborn of humanity? This does not seem to fit Jesus Christ. He was the firstborn of Mary, but He came four thousand years after Adam and Cain! What does Paul mean here?
He is not discussing preeminence, especially when he links it to “the image of the invisible God.” Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Paul is writing about humanity being born into the Family of God! Jesus Christ is indeed first! He is the first of all humanity to be born as God. Three verses later he writes, “He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18). It is so obvious! He is writing about a resurrection, a birth from physical to spiritual, from humanity to God!
Lest you think this guy is supporting the Trinity, he is actually supporting the idea that we will all be God! Yeow.
Kejonn;
I'm having a difficult time following this scenario. Are you saying that worshippingJesus is not trinitarian. If not, what does he believe?
Steven
Kejonn
You said…
Quote Because translations change, but the original Greek (hopefully)remains true? Doubting the translators and major translators again.
This is what people do when the find they don’t believe the scriptures. You should learn Greek and Hebrew and translate your own Bible rather than cast shadow on the translators works and use them against them.
You said…
Quote
I've already show a direct quote. Curious, but why don't you address the body of the quote on “ho theos” from Philo?Because I don’t believe him as I have shown he contradicts Johns writings by insinuading the Logos is “a god” and that the logos is not eternal. Besides I am not a greek expert and neither are you. If Philo was so important why dont we have a translation of his own. as you said he didnt even know Yeshua.
You want to follow Philo, go ahead. I will trust the current translations.
You said…
Quote
Please tell me what “firstborn of all creation” means.Already have.
You are always saying Trinitarians always take things out of context, yet you take a word “Firstborn” to force it to say what you want when Paul himself uses the same word in a different way than you interpret it a in the same context.
Here is some more information for you.
1.There is a precise Greek word to indicate the “first” of a particular created order; it is the term proto-ktistos. This word is defined by classical scholars Liddell & Scott as meaning “founded or created first” (p. 1400). This is not the term employed by Paul to depict Christ in the Colossian context, though the apostle had a term available should he have wanted to make that point. That he did not is significant.
Balz & Schneider observe that prototokos in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes a “superiority of essence,” and it does not suggest that Christ is “a part of the creation himself, but [he] stands rather in a unique relationship to God, the ‘invisible’” (Vol. 3, p. 190).
W. Michaelis, in the Kittel/Friedrich dictionary, notes that the “for” clause (that begins verse 16) provides the explanation for the term “firstborn,” namely that “all things owe their creation to Christ’s mediation.” He insists that the point “is not that Christ is the first creature”; rather, the thought being emphasized is “Christ’s supremacy over creation” (Bromiley, p. 968).
Moreover, since the apostle affirms that Jesus created all things, it would follow logically that if he himself were a created being, he must have made himself! Recognizing this necessary, though absurd, conclusion, the Watchtower Society presumptively inserted the term “other” into the New World Translation at verse 16; ”. . . because by means of him all [other] things were created. . . ” Their use of brackets reveals an awareness that there is no textual basis for the insertion.
2.Finally, the use of “firstborn” in verse 18 sheds light on the foregoing text. The Savior is described as “the firstborn from the dead” (cf. Rev. 1:5). Jesus was not the “firstborn from the dead” as a consequence of being the first one ever to be raised from the dead. There were resurrections from death both in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:8-24), and during the personal ministry of the Lord (cf. Jn. 11:17ff).
Christ is “firstborn from the dead” in that he demonstrated his power over the grave. He was even instrumental in effecting his own resurrection (Jn. 2:19). Further, unlike others, who were resurrected, Jesus was raised to die “no more” (Rom. 6:9). He is the ever-living one who now has the “keys” over both death and Hades (Rev. 1:18).
There is simply no justification for the notion that the pre-incarnate Word (Jn. 1:1,14) was a created being. This is but one of the numerous errors that afflict the Watchtower movement.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/was_jesus_created_firstBesides if you say Jesus was a firstborn creature before the creation then you are saying there was another being besides God that created all things. Contradiction.
You find yourself on the NWT side again kejonn.
You said…
Quote
I don't say that. Scripture says “firstborn of all creation”. Why are you avoiding that verse?Never was. Refer to above!
You said…
Quote
I didn't snip any scripture. I snipped the “opinion” of scholars.
Are you a scholar? Where is your credentials? Do you place yourself above the opinion of the scholars? Then you say I am stubborn.You said…
Quote
Yet, no article coupled with the last instance of “theos” in either verse. So either they need to be translated similarly or someone has some 'splainin' to do.No the scholars already did their explaining. You just don’t like the outcome. Go make your own Bible then. Or use the NWT. But don’t try to make Christians see your doctrine in contrast to over 600 scholars who don’t agree with you and your proposed interpretation. Should we follow you?
You said…
Quote Hmmmmmmm….
I see you have adopted a Greek philosopher “Philo” as your expert, who you said didn’t know Yeshua! Scarry!You said…
Quote
Quite right. And like I said, not perfect. But many words are translated by context. For instance, logos can be translated as “word”, “account”, “saying”, “speech”, and “thing”. In the is case, “word” is likely the best. But “theos” could have easily been translated as “godly” since this does occur.Yet, we are back to the one very glaring problem: since when is a “word” God? Please explain this, unless you are ready to take at look at how Philo uses “logos”. Very extensive, and many of the above point to the same idea as John 1.
This is what the Unitarians believe. They had to resort to this because they don’t belie
ve Jesus preexisted.Jesus is not “a word” he is “The Word”.
You said…
Quote
Now you are inserting your own words. You have yet to adequately address verses like 1 Cor 8:6. You try to spin some tale about “well there can't be just one Lord, so 'One God, the Father' is not quite right either”. That verse is the main one that trinitarians continue to dance all around.I believe in One God too kejonn. Obviously my concept of the One God is not yours. But your proof text again does not say Jesus is not God. Other scriptures do say he is God if you dont spin them or snip them.
You said…
Quote
“Firstborn of all creation”. If you disagree, you disagree not with me, but with scripture. “It says this, but it really means this”. Uh huh.
Your twist now. See above.
You said…Quote
God is invisible. So Yeshua created God? He is before all things. And if all things consist by him, this must include the Father, right?I know better.
Nope, the Father is not part of the creation. Neither is the Son. They are not of the all things.
This scripture seems to be a little irritating to you.
Col 1:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
You said…Quote
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”
“firstborn of all creation”So Jesus had 2 births? 1 after God spoke him into being, after which he being a newborn created the heavens and the earth, then he was born again as a man through Mary! Right?
You should settle down and relax. You seem to get your blood preassure way up.
You said…
Quote
Seems every one of the commentators on bible.cc disagree with you. And they tend to be very Trinitarian I've found.Stubborn.
Did you read the sources you quoted..
“The first begotten of every creature – That is, begotten before every creature; subsisting before all worlds, before all time, from all eternity.
“He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us.”
How could he have been born which means he had a beginning when they say he is before all time and from all eternity?
And again…
- John used the imperfect tense verb “en” (was) three times in relation to “ho Logos” in the fist 2 verses of John 1 (v1a,c and v2). “En” denotes continuous action, so this grammar forcibly affirms the Logos eternality, that He was without a beginning. So again John has made a very poor word choice if his aim was to present the subject as a lesser divinity. On the other side of the coin its what you would expect to see if absolute was in view.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375Even they disagree with you who was saying earlier…lets see how did you say it? Oh, Here it is…
Quote The only thing at issue is that Trinitarians are making logos out to be some “person”. Yet logos is “thought, speech, reason” etc. No, the issue is yours who hasnt decided what you believe, yet you cast shadows on others belief.
Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlastingQuote (kejonn @ Aug. 07 2007,16:21) Check out this guy :P. From Prototokos Colossians 1:15 describes Jesus Christ: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Lately, some have said that firstborn here means “preeminent.” Undoubtedly it can be used as such, but its more natural meaning is “the first to open the womb.”
Creation (ktisis) “denotes a particular created thing” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 897), meaning in this case, “humans” or “humanity.” This phrase, then, could be translated: “the first born of humanity.” But was not Adam (or more technically, Cain) the firstborn of humanity? This does not seem to fit Jesus Christ. He was the firstborn of Mary, but He came four thousand years after Adam and Cain! What does Paul mean here?
He is not discussing preeminence, especially when he links it to “the image of the invisible God.” Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Paul is writing about humanity being born into the Family of God! Jesus Christ is indeed first! He is the first of all humanity to be born as God. Three verses later he writes, “He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18). It is so obvious! He is writing about a resurrection, a birth from physical to spiritual, from humanity to God!
Lest you think this guy is supporting the Trinity, he is actually supporting the idea that we will all be God! Yeow.
kejonnYou say…
Quote
Lest you think this guy is supporting the Trinity, he is actually supporting the idea that we will all be God! Yeow.Misrepresentation is a sign of weakness, I dont expect that from you.
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 07 2007,15:56) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 06 2007,18:56)
Mr steveYou have never seen me say the “logos” is eternally begotten.
I believe the 'Logos” which was with God and was God is not the spoken logos. The Logos that was God took on the likeness of sinfull flesh without diminishing his nature as the Word/God, for God can not change and neither could the “Logos”.
Jesus became the Only Begotten Son of God when he came in the flesh and was born a man. There is no scripture that says Yeshua was begotten before his natural birth.
Except Col 1:15, which the commentators of bible.cc disagree with you. See my last post.
kejonnWhere is the scripture that says Yeshua was the begotten Son of God before his birth?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2007,16:10) Doubting the translators and major translators again.
In reality, I don't know so much that I doubt the translators as much as I doubt Trinitarians view of John 1:1. I can leave it as “God” and still know that “logos” is not my God. I don't worship words and reason.Quote This is what people do when the find they don’t believe the scriptures. You should learn Greek and Hebrew and translate your own Bible rather than cast shadow on the translators works and use them against them.
I believe them well enough. But I also believe that 20th century believers don't really have a grasp of what “theos” meant to the 1st century Christian or Jew. After all, Paul was called “theos” in Acts 28:6. I know for certain that he is not God Almighty.Quote Because I don’t believe him as I have shown he contradicts Johns writings by insinuading the Logos is “a god” and that the logos is not eternal. Besides I am not a greek expert and neither are you. If Philo was so important why dont we have a translation of his own. as you said he didnt even know Yeshua.
Haha, the reason I make the statement about him not knowing Yeshua is that he wrote of logos in application to the God of Israel before the NT ever came around. Why did no other writer except the one who wrote John's Gospel mention “logos” in the same manner, but so much like Philo's logos that there is very little doubt that they were both inpsired of God or that the writer of GoJ was influenced by Philo. But you don't like the latter so you dismiss it no matter how much I show the similarities. You remind me of the king of Israel who hated Micaiah because he spoke the truth.Quote You want to follow Philo, go ahead. I will trust the current translations.
You have to trust them because if not, your belief system crumbles. Thats OK.Quote You are always saying Trinitarians always take things out of context, yet you take a word “Firstborn” to force it to say what you want when Paul himself uses the same word in a different way than you interpret it a in the same context. Here is some more information for you.
1.There is a precise Greek word to indicate the “first” of a particular created order; it is the term proto-ktistos. This word is defined by classical scholars Liddell & Scott as meaning “founded or created first” (p. 1400). This is not the term employed by Paul to depict Christ in the Colossian context, though the apostle had a term available should he have wanted to make that point. That he did not is significant.
Balz & Schneider observe that prototokos in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes a “superiority of essence,” and it does not suggest that Christ is “a part of the creation himself, but [he] stands rather in a unique relationship to God, the ‘invisible’” (Vol. 3, p. 190).
W. Michaelis, in the Kittel/Friedrich dictionary, notes that the “for” clause (that begins verse 16) provides the explanation for the term “firstborn,” namely that “all things owe their creation to Christ’s mediation.” He insists that the point “is not that Christ is the first creature”; rather, the thought being emphasized is “Christ’s supremacy over creation” (Bromiley, p. 968).
Moreover, since the apostle affirms that Jesus created all things, it would follow logically that if he himself were a created being, he must have made himself! Recognizing this necessary, though absurd, conclusion, the Watchtower Society presumptively inserted the term “other” into the New World Translation at verse 16; ”. . . because by means of him all [other] things were created. . . ” Their use of brackets reveals an awareness that there is no textual basis for the insertion.
2.Finally, the use of “firstborn” in verse 18 sheds light on the foregoing text. The Savior is described as “the firstborn from the dead” (cf. Rev. 1:5). Jesus was not the “firstborn from the dead” as a consequence of being the first one ever to be raised from the dead. There were resurrections from death both in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:8-24), and during the personal ministry of the Lord (cf. Jn. 11:17ff).
Christ is “firstborn from the dead” in that he demonstrated his power over the grave. He was even instrumental in effecting his own resurrection (Jn. 2:19). Further, unlike others, who were resurrected, Jesus was raised to die “no more” (Rom. 6:9). He is the ever-living one who now has the “keys” over both death and Hades (Rev. 1:18).
There is simply no justification for the notion that the pre-incarnate Word (Jn. 1:1,14) was a created being. This is but one of the numerous errors that afflict the Watchtower movement.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/was_jesus_created_firstBesides if you say Jesus was a firstborn creature before the creation then you are saying there was another being besides God that created all things. Contradiction.
You find yourself on the NWT side again kejonn.
***sigh***. OK, here's where the real rubber meets the road. If Yeshua is God, why would he even be called firstborn at all? Take away the highly likely obvious meaning of the word and replace it with what you want. Now tell me how it is that God must be shown to have preeminance over all created things. Was that not already established in the OT? Was God Almighty ever called “firstborn” or “begotten”. Please answer that.Quote Are you a scholar? Where is your credentials? Do you place yourself above the opinion of the scholars? Then you say I am stubborn.
I snipped them because I've seen it all before. Yet you still don't tell me why modern day scholars have the advantage over a person who wrote and spoke the exact same Greek the NT was written in. Look at the Bishops Bible and how much English has changed just since the 1500s. So now you will tell me modern scholars have a good grip of 1st century Koine Greek?Quote I see you have adopted a Greek philosopher “Philo” as your expert, who you said didn’t know Yeshua! Scarry!
Does he have to know Yeshua to know what “ho theos” means? He used the Septuagint and wrot
e in Koine Greek after all. He says “theos” with the article means the True God. I only showed what was written.Quote This is what the Unitarians believe. They had to resort to this because they don’t believe Jesus preexisted. Jesus is not “a word” he is “The Word”.
And yet we see “The word of God” 39 times in the NT, “the word of the Lord” in 255 verses in the OT and NT. What is your point?Quote I believe in One God too kejonn. Obviously my concept of the One God is not yours. But your proof text again does not say Jesus is not God. Other scriptures do say he is God if you dont spin them or snip them.
Yet what does “one God, the Father” mean? There can be no real spin to that. You still ignore it. I guess Paul should have wrote “one God, the Father, and not the Son” right?Quote Nope, the Father is not part of the creation. Neither is the Son. They are not of the all things. This scripture seems to be a little irritating to you.
Col 1:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist
I have no issue at all with this. I never said Yeshua was created. I did say he was born though. He was born of God, directly from His essence. Born created. I think that is where you are confused. You know “firstborn”.Quote So Jesus had 2 births? 1 after God spoke him into being, after which he being a newborn created the heavens and the earth, then he was born again as a man through Mary! Right?
Again, tell me why, if he is God, must one say he is “firstborn” if this only indicates his status? Why use this term of all for someone who is unbegotten or uncreated? Even the early fathers only called the Father unbegotten. Check it out and your eyes will be opened.Quote You should settle down and relax. You seem to get your blood preassure way up.
Says the one who calls others “JWs” and “liars”.Quote Did you read the sources you quoted.. “The first begotten of every creature – That is, begotten before every creature; subsisting before all worlds, before all time, from all eternity.
“He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made; which is the Scripture way of representing eternity, and by which the eternity of God is represented to us.”
How could he have been born which means he had a beginning when they say he is before all time and from all eternity?
And again…
- John used the imperfect tense verb “en” (was) three times in relation to “ho Logos” in the fist 2 verses of John 1 (v1a,c and v2). “En” denotes continuous action, so this grammar forcibly affirms the Logos eternality, that He was without a beginning. So again John has made a very poor word choice if his aim was to present the subject as a lesser divinity. On the other side of the coin its what you would expect to see if absolute was in view.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375Even they disagree with you who was saying earlier…lets see how did you say it? Oh, Here it is…
Quote The only thing at issue is that Trinitarians are making logos out to be some “person”. Yet logos is “thought, speech, reason” etc. No, the issue is yours who hasnt decided what you believe, yet you cast shadows on others belief.
Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
As I said, even the early fathers called the Father unbegotten. I will provide quotes for you later. So if the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten, what does that tell you? The Father preceded the Son. In our reality that may not mean much but it does say he had a beginning while the Father did not.Dear WJ;
It's amazing how much truth is found in the statements of John the Baptist. He was quoted by Christ and the Apostles. John the Baptist says twice in the first chapter of John that He (Christ) is preferred before me because he (Christ) was before me. John says Christ was before him, meaning that Jesus Christ existed before him as a person. He did not say God was before him because that would be pointless since all believed that God is eternal so that is given. When John later saw Christ he called him the Lamb of God. Indeed, the Lamb of God was the Son of God. He did not say God which is a Lamb, or God in the flesh, but the Lamb of God. He it was that John says twice existed before him.
If he only existed in seed as the word of God he could not have made such a statement. All of us in Christ have also been begotten by God through Christ. The seed of the word of God has caused us to be born again, but we certainly did not exist with God before creation as persons as John states Christ did. The Lamb of God is the Son of God.Think about what you are really saying WJ. I'm not being sacastic either. You do not believe that Christ was the Son of God before his virgin birth. You do believe he existed as God according to your interpretation of John 1:1. So what you are stating is that Christ was God before coming to earth. Now if Christ was God that means he is the self existence one that revealed himself as the Almighty to Abraham, Jehovah to Moses, and so on. So by that interpretation you believe as does CB that Christ was Jehovah and is therefore the Father, too, the Most High. What name did Gabriel say to Mary that Christ would be called? Was it Jehovah? Was it the Most High God? You do believe that God does not change. Christ said he was the Son of God. The Father in the gospel's state that Christ was the Son of God. The angel that appeared to Mary said he was the Son of God. What you are saying is that he is the Father, wihich according to Christ, was in Heaven. Matthew records two dozen times from Christ own lips that his Father was in Heaven. If he was the Father why did he pray to him? If he was the Father, why did he worship him or keep his commandments. So if Christ was God why did he say he always pleased God. Would he really been keeping his own commandments and pleasing himself. If a person really knows the word of God your entire doctrine of the Godhead contradicts itself repeatedly. With all the sincereness that I can state, you should consider yourself blessed to have found the truth in posts that actually are based upon scripture. If you would like I will pray for you in this regard. Seriously, if you still feel that you have the true insight I won't pray for you in this respect if you ask me not to.
God Bless
Steven
kejonn
You said…
Quote
As I said, even the early fathers called the Father unbegotten. I will provide quotes for you later. So if the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten, what does that tell you? The Father preceded the Son. In our reality that may not mean much but it does say he had a beginning while the Father did not.
Dont waste your time. The word “Begotten” is not found in scriptures referring to the Son before his natural birth.So the Fathers refering to the Unbegotten God is distinguishing the Father from the “Word/God” who came in the flesh.
Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?This is post ressurection.
Begotten only relates to his natural birth. He was the “Word that was God” before taking on the likeness of sinfull flesh. There is no scripture that says he was a Son before he was born a Son.
He is YHWH in the flesh.
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 08 2007,10:02) Dear WJ; It's amazing how much truth is found in the statements of John the Baptist. He was quoted by Christ and the Apostles. John the Baptist says twice in the first chapter of John that He (Christ) is preferred before me because he (Christ) was before me. John says Christ was before him, meaning that Jesus Christ existed before him as a person. He did not say God was before him because that would be pointless since all believed that God is eternal so that is given. When John later saw Christ he called him the Lamb of God. Indeed, the Lamb of God was the Son of God. He did not say God which is a Lamb, or God in the flesh, but the Lamb of God. He it was that John says twice existed before him.
If he only existed in seed as the word of God he could not have made such a statement. All of us in Christ have also been begotten by God through Christ. The seed of the word of God has caused us to be born again, but we certainly did not exist with God before creation as persons as John states Christ did. The Lamb of God is the Son of God.Think about what you are really saying WJ. I'm not being sacastic either. You do not believe that Christ was the Son of God before his virgin birth. You do believe he existed as God according to your interpretation of John 1:1. So what you are stating is that Christ was God before coming to earth. Now if Christ was God that means he is the self existence one that revealed himself as the Almighty to Abraham, Jehovah to Moses, and so on. So by that interpretation you believe as does CB that Christ was Jehovah and is therefore the Father, too, the Most High. What name did Gabriel say to Mary that Christ would be called? Was it Jehovah? Was it the Most High God? You do believe that God does not change. Christ said he was the Son of God. The Father in the gospel's state that Christ was the Son of God. The angel that appeared to Mary said he was the Son of God. What you are saying is that he is the Father, wihich according to Christ, was in Heaven. Matthew records two dozen times from Christ own lips that his Father was in Heaven. If he was the Father why did he pray to him? If he was the Father, why did he worship him or keep his commandments. So if Christ was God why did he say he always pleased God. Would he really been keeping his own commandments and pleasing himself. If a person really knows the word of God your entire doctrine of the Godhead contradicts itself repeatedly. With all the sincereness that I can state, you should consider yourself blessed to have found the truth in posts that actually are based upon scripture. If you would like I will pray for you in this regard. Seriously, if you still feel that you have the true insight I won't pray for you in this respect if you ask me not to.
God Bless
Steven
mr steveYou implications here is that I am a modalist.
I dont think you understand a Trinitarians view, or at least not mine.
Here is a link that might help you understand.
http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm
Pretty much what you will find and listen to on that sight is what I believe. I have many others if you would like the links
I feel I do have the “true insight”. As most here do.
But thanks for your gesture. Surely we all need prayer for more truth because none but the Lord has all truth.
It is the desire of the Lord that all of his children come into the Unity of the faith and unto the knowledge of the Son of God.
Eph 4:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:Blessings
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
