Trinity &#8211; Is 1:18&#039;s Proof Text #3

Participant

CB;

You have made the classic error. When you say, “Jesus was speaking in context of his incarnation” you add to the scripture, making the truth of God of none effect. You do this alot. Your favorite is to distinguish Christ as the Messiah from that of the Son of God. Where in the scriptures does Christ say, “let me preface this statement, I'm speaking in reference to my incarnation.” You can never know the truth when you read the Bible as you do with the injection of your own code of interpretation.

August 3, 2007 at 4:42 am#62913

Cult Buster

Participant

Mr Steve.

You will never see the truth with your eyes closed

Isa 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

JOHN 5:17-18 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

MATTHEW 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Compare
Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre
With
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Compare
Psa 41:13 Blessed be the LORD (Jehovah) God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.
With
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.

JOHN 5:23 That all {men} should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.

JOHN 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Compare
1 CHRONICLES 28:9 . . . the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts:
With
MATTHEW 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
MATTHEW 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, . . .
REVELATION 2:23 . . . I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: . . .

Compare
DANIEL 9:9 To the Lord our God {belong} mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;
LUKE 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
With
LUKE 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
MARK 2:5-10 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. (6) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, (7) Why doth this {man} thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

Compare
Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
With
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Compare
1Sa 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD (Jehovah): for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
Psa 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.
With
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD (yhovah), I change not;
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

PSALM 148:1-2 Praise ye the Lord. Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise him in the heights. (2) Praise ye him, all his angels : praise ye him, all his hosts.
HEBREWS 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

DEUTERONOMY 10:17 For the Lord your God {is} God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, . . . {cf. Ps 136:2-3, 1 Tim 6:15}
REVELATION 17:14 . . . the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: . . .{cf. Rev 19:16}

PSALM 62:12 . . . unto thee, O Lord, {belongeth} mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work. {cf. Is 40:10}
MATTHEW 16:27 For the Son of man shall . . . reward every man according to his works.

ROMANS 7:22 . . . the law of God . . . {cf. Ps 19:7}
GALATIANS 6:2 . . . fulfil the law of Christ.

ROMANS 8:9 . . . the Spirit of God. . .
+ROMANS 8:9 . . . the Spirit of Christ, .. .

*TITUS 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
+ACTS 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

*ISAIAH 43:11 I, {even} I, {am} the Lord (Jehovah); and beside me {there is} no saviour.
*LUKE 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
+LUKE 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
2 PETER 1:1 . . . God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Mat 1:21 And she shall bear a son, and you shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins

*ISAIAH 40:10 Behold, the Lord God will come with strong {hand}, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward {is} with him, and his work before him.
2 THESSALONIANS 1:7-8 . . . the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, (8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Psa 50:6 And the heavens shall declare his righteousness; For God is judge himself. Selah
Psa 7:8 The LORD (Jehovah) shall judge the people: judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.
ECCLESIASTES 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether {it be} good or whether {it be} evil.
JOHN 5:22,27 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son . . . (27) And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Stephen kneeling and praying to Jesus)

Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Phi 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Phi 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Joh 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Jer 23:5-6 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch (Jesus), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (Je
hovah)OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

COLOSSIANS 2:9-10 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

TITUS 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

August 3, 2007 at 5:15 am#62924

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 03 2007,09:00)

Well, since this thread was initially written to addess John 1:1c, its time to look back to the originator of John's thought process – Philo. I don't know what made me think of Philo today but a heaviness of my heart came upon me and the name Philo came up. I knew nothing of Philo before today but now I know more than I want to.

So here is John 1:1 again.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This verse is a “cornerstone” for the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Lets then look to the writings of a man who preceded almost all of the New Testament, Philo of Alexandria. His application of Logos to God came before the Gospel of John.

From ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT, 1.229-230

(1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho Theos);” but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou Theou), but simply “of God” (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

May this then be the end of that argument. The writer of the Gospel of John was influenced by Philo to formulate the Logos prelude. There can be little doubt to this. If we accept that Yeshua was indeed the Logos of God before he took on the form of a bond-servant, Philo shows us what happens when you have “ho theos” versus “theos” without the article. That is, only the true God is called “ho theos” according to the one who came up with the idea of Logos and God.

Please remember that Philo precedes almost all if not all NT writers. This certainly includes the writer of the Gospel of John.

The absence of the article for Jn 1:1c is to simply distinguish between the Father and the Son. John did not want introduce Modalism.

Its a fallacious argument to say the lack of “ho” Proceeding “Theos” means that “Theos” is not God.

For many instances in the NT show that “Theos” was used without the “ho” in refering to the Father.

If lack of the definite article demands this:

“and the word was a god” (NWT)
Then consistency demands the NWT read this way in all these verses that also lack the definite article:

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

I know this is a cornerstone verse and thank God that John came along later with his writtings to set the record straight.

Yeshua is God.

You seem to agree with the JWs alot.

Jesus is “a god”, the Holy Spirit is an it.

What gives?

August 3, 2007 at 6:18 am#62945

Participant

WJ,

Did you read the Philo thread? Can you explain why John's Gospel contains many of the same themes as Philo's writings? I look forward to your answer.

Again, Happy Birthday!

August 7, 2007 at 9:31 am#63388

Proclaimer

Participant

John 1:1.

Taken from Wikipedia.

In Christianity, the prologue of the Gospel of John calls Jesus “the Logos” (usually translated as “the Word” in English bibles such as the KJV). Christians who profess belief in the Trinity often consider this to be a central text in their belief that Jesus is the Divine Son of God. Usually in connection with the idea that God and Jesus are equals.

Other scholars, however, disagree with this translation and the subsequent interpretation of the text. Some Translations render John 1:1 to state “and the Word was a god” rather than the more Traditional “the Word was God.” This translation is seen in Bible Versions such as the NWT, as well as several German Translations.

The literal Greek text reads: “In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.” There are no capitals, and thus the translator must supply them. It is clearly proper to capitalize “God” in translating the phrase “the god,” since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word, or Logos, was. However, capitalizing the second instance of the word “god” cannot be justified in the same way. As noted below, some translations say “the Word was God”, while others say “the Word was a God”. While it is true that there is no indefinite article ('a', or 'an') in the original Greek text, this is because Koine Greek had no indefinite article in the language. Thus, translators are required to use the indefinite article, or not, based on their understanding of the text.

There is good reason for utilizing the indefinite article in translation of this text. Note first that the Word was “with” God, and hence could not “be” Almighty God, although this could be describing the oftentimes unclear relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son, and their equality. Additionally, the word for “god' in it's second occurence is significantly without the definite article “the”. Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os′] and [ho the·os′] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os′]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110. This may , however, contradict the assertion in many parts of both the New and Old Testament that there is only one God. In Christianity, the concept of the Trinity is used to describe a God of three Persons. The Gospel of John can be seen to confirm that God can be a God of multiple Persons while remaining at the same time One God.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” Other scholars, such as Philip B. Harner elaborate on the grammatical construction found here. (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)

Translation A:

1973 “the Word was God” New International Version

1611 “the Word was God” King James Version (Authorized Version)

1995 “and was truly God” Contemporary English Version

2001 “and God was the word.” Wycliffe New Testament

Translation B:

1808 “and the word was a god” — The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop William Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” — Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” — The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god” — New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” — Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

Some scholars of the Bible have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word “Logos” to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenic polytheism, especially followers of Philo. Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts. Especially for the Hellenists, however, John turns the concept of the Logos on its head when he claimed “the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us” (v. 14). Similarly, some translations of the Gospel of John into Chinese have used the word “Tao (道)” to translate the “Logos” in a provocative way.

Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c 150) identified Jesus as the Logos. He portrayed Jesus not as “the Maker of all things” but as “the Angel of the Lord”, subject to the Maker of all things.[2]

Early Christians who opposed the concept of Jesus as the Logos were known as alogoi.

August 7, 2007 at 3:20 pm#63401

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 07 2007,21:31)

John 1:1.

Taken from Wikipedia.

Translation A:

1973 “the Word was God” New International Version

1611 “the Word was God” King James Version (Authorized Version)

1995 “and was truly God” Contemporary English Version

2001 “and God was the word.” Wycliffe New Testament

Translation B:

1808 “and the word was a god” — The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop William Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” — Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” — The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god” — New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” — Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

Early Christians who opposed the concept of Jesus as the Logos were known as alogoi.

This is what wikipedia says about the above article quoted by t8…

This article does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article has been tagged since March 2007.

You should at least give a link to the source. Really this is funny.

The source is unverifiable.

And your few translations you mention like the NWT are in opposition to all the major translations on biblegateway and Blueletter.com.

You and kejonn seem to be aligning with the NWT and watchtower a lot lately.

The Word is a god. The spirit is not a person.

The Word had a beginning.

God brought birth to a lessor god who he created the worlds through.

August 7, 2007 at 3:44 pm#63403

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 07 2007,04:31)

Justin Martyr got the concept of logos being and angel from Philo

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.

August 7, 2007 at 4:13 pm#63407

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2007,10:20)

And your few translations you mention like the NWT are in opposition to all the major translations on biblegateway and Blueletter.com.

You and kejonn seem to be aligning with the NWT and watchtower a lot lately.

And you are started to sound like CB :laugh: . I guess this is a weak attempt at “hurting our feelings”, eh?

Quote

The Word is a god. The spirit is not a person.

The Word had a beginning.

God brought birth to a lessor god who he created the worlds through.

Hey, you are agreeing with us now? Well, except the “lesser god” thing. I don't believe Yeshua is a “lesser god”. He is Messiah, Mediator, Great High Priest, Lord, Master, Teacher, and Savior.

Tell me WJ, what makes “logos” in John 1:1 any more special than “logos” anywhere else, especially when you consider the many instances of “logos theos” in the NT? Why are most of those not capitalized so it appears that “The Word” is supposed to be some separate being?

From The Bishops Bible

John 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God, and that worde was God
John 1:2 The same was in the begynnyng with God
John 1:3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made
John 1:14 and the same worde became flesh, and dwelt among vs, (and we sawe the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten sonne of the father) full of grace and trueth.

Seems the Word in John 1:1 became a “he” sometime after the Bishop's Bible was written, eh? And did you know that the KJV was written with Bishop's Bible as a main resource? Seems that the KJV bunch decided to both capitalize “Word” and go from “it” to “he”. After all, the “logos” has to be a “he” here, even if it is not anywhere else…

August 7, 2007 at 4:26 pm#63409

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 08 2007,03:44)

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 07 2007,04:31)

Justin Martyr got the concept of logos being and angel from Philo

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.

I suppose God borrowed the name “Word of God” from Philo?

Rev 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Yep.

Watchtower.

Jws.

Lies.

August 7, 2007 at 4:29 pm#63411

Participant

CB;

Nice cut and paste. Perhaps someday you will send an interpretation.

Response to Post from August 3, 2007 at 16:42.

August 7, 2007 at 4:33 pm#63413

Participant

WJ;

Where did Christ get all the names given to him? By the way, do you intend to answer any of my posts to you. They only need to be succinct statement, please don't publish a book like you do for Kejonn. This isn't my job. If you know the truth you should be able to enunciate it clearly in a few sentences. Perhaps that problem, you don't know the truth. Never mind.

Steven

August 7, 2007 at 6:46 pm#63428

Participant

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 08 2007,04:13)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2007,10:20)

And your few translations you mention like the NWT are in opposition to all the major translations on biblegateway and Blueletter.com.

You and kejonn seem to be aligning with the NWT and watchtower a lot lately.

And you are started to sound like CB :laugh: . I guess this is a weak attempt at “hurting our feelings”, eh?

Quote

The Word is a god. The spirit is not a person.

The Word had a beginning.

God brought birth to a lessor god who he created the worlds through.

From The Bishops Bible

John 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God, and that worde was God
John 1:2 The same was in the begynnyng with God
John 1:3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made
John 1:14 and the same worde became flesh, and dwelt among vs, (and we sawe the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten sonne of the father) full of grace and trueth.

kejonn

Because Yeshua laid the foundation of the world and not “a thought or a plan”. Because “a thought or a plan dosn't have life.

And because of the other pronouns sorrounding the “His, Him, Hes in John 1 are invariably used in relation to a person.

Should we go over them Kejonn?

Is it your mission to cast doubt on scriptures? Why is it you constantly find fault in the scriptures?

I know it must hurt your fellings that every translation that is credible on BibleGateway and Blueletter.com translates John ch 1 with the personal pronouns “He”, him, his refering to the “Word” that was with God and “was God”! So the KJV committee had some good reasons for using personal pronouns.

James' third rule was that the Bishops' Bible was to be the basis of the translation and it was to be corrected only to bring it into greater conformity to the meaning of the original languages.
http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html

You seem to be changing your theology as you go along here!

August 7, 2007 at 6:58 pm#63429

Participant

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Aug. 08 2007,04:33)

WJ;

Steven

Mr steve

I dont particularly like interacting with people who resort to name calling and condescending, and patroninzing and sarcasms.

Like your statement…

“Perhaps that problem, you don't know the truth. Never mind. “.

I have served God for 33 years and know in whom I have believed. You or nobody else can tell me I dont know him who is the truth.

August 7, 2007 at 8:32 pm#63432

Participant

WJ;

God is your Judge, not me. I would appreciate the same respect, but have never requested it from you. I have read many of your posts accusing various ones of being Jehovah Witnesses, and serving another Jesus, or implying that some do not know Christ. I have always believed a real man knows how to admit when he is wrong and ask for forgiveness. In all respects which I have exceeded reasonable argument and crossed the line into unreasonable statements, I ask you to forgive me. In my defense and for many others, most of the jabbing is not to be taken seriously. Posting our beliefs and sharing our faith with each other can be fun, even entertaining. I laugh a lot while reading many of the posts. I have no cause to doubt your undying faith in Jesus Christ though we may disagree on certain areas of faith. After all, if we both agreed on everything one of us might not be necessary.

August 7, 2007 at 8:32 pm#63433

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2007,11:26)

I suppose God borrowed the name “Word of God” from Philo?

Rev 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Nah, “word of God” is used in the OT too :cool: .

But I've pondered this name in Revelation. Many scholars seem to say that the final Gospel of John was authored after Revelation, even if by only a few years. Hard to say. So it could be possible that after seeing the vision of “logos theos” on Yeshua's robe, John then was inspired to write the prelude to the Gospel of John. After all, no other Gospel mentions it and the time period of both books is similar.

Quote

Watchtower.

Jws.

Lies.

Listen dude, I'm just listing references for you. If it does not line up with your beliefs, so be it. But your little “watchtower”, “JWs”, “lies” diatribe just tells me you are against the ropes. I may be wrong, but when have I called what you have written “lies”? Again, what I list the majoity of time is things I've discovered. Can I help that Philo wrote of the logos of God which is so much like John's logos that it is creepy? Yet you want to discount Philo because he doesn't agree with your theology. Please show me where Philo's logos disagrees with John's logos beyond the one fact of “the Word became flesh”.

“In the beginning was the word” – Philo calls the logos “eternal” and “ancient” and “firstborn” (hint Col 1:15) of God.

“and the Word was with God” – the logos Philo speaks about is with God eternally and never changes

“and the Word was God” – Philo calls logos “divine”, “the second deity”, and “the second God”. But Philo also says that the logos is inferior to the true God, because man cannot be truly patterned after God Almighty but can be made in the image of the divine word. This is because the divine word is a “shadow” of the Father. Did you know that Philo also called God “Father”?

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” – This is what Philo says of the logos
But the shadow of God is his word, which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things. For, as God is himself the model of that image which he has now called a shadow, so also that image is the model of other things, as he showed when he commenced giving the law to the Israelites, and said, “And God made man according to the image of God.”{46}{#ge 1:26.} as the image was modelled according to God, and as man was modelled according to the image, which thus received the power and character of the model.

“In Him was life” – Philo says
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.

“and the life was the Light of men” – Of which Philo states
and the other he called light, because it is surpassingly beautiful: for that which is perceptible only by intellect is as far more brilliant and splendid than that which is seen, as I conceive, the sun is than darkness, or day than night, or the intellect than any other of the outward senses by which men judge (inasmuch as it is the guide of the entire soul), or the eyes than any other part of the body. (31) 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 it is a star above the heavens, the source of those stars which are perceptible by the external senses, and if any one were to call it universal light he would not be very wrong; since it is from that the sun and the moon, and all the other planets and fixed stars derive their due light, in proportion as each has power given to it;

“The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” – Philo states
so also is the word of God, very sharp-sighted, so as to be capable of beholding every thing, and by which all things that are worth seeing can be beheld, in reference to which fact it is white. For what can be more brilliant or visible at a greater distance than the divine word, by participation in which all other things can repel mists and darkness, being eager to share in the light of the soul?

“and the world did not know Him” – Again, Philo states
for the word of God is over all the world, and is the most ancient, and the most universal of all the things that are created. This word our fathers knew not

Quite similar thus far, eh?

August 7, 2007 at 8:50 pm#63434

Participant

Kejonn;

What is Philo? You and WJ keeping referring to Philo and I'm not sure what the contention is all about?

Thanks

Steven

August 7, 2007 at 8:52 pm#63435

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 07 2007,13:46)

kejonn

Because Yeshua laid the foundation of the world and not “a thought or a plan”. Because “a thought or a plan dosn't have life.

And because of the other pronouns sorrounding the “His, Him, Hes in John 1 are invariably used in relation to a person.

You mean “autos”. Yes, it can be translated as “he” or “she” if it describes a person, but is a logos a person outside of the Trinitarian view? No, logos is something said, something thought, reason, etc. in most other cases. Did you know that “autos” can also be “it”? So right now your argument does not hold too much water.

Quote

Should we go over them Kejonn?

Is it your mission to cast doubt on scriptures? Why is it you constantly find fault in the scriptures?

No, but it appears that you want to make it appear as such. Is this your only good defense, to start saying things like this? First the “watchtower” and “JW” stuff, now this. What next?

Besides, the scriptures are valid. The translations may be flawed however.

Quote

know it must hurt your fellings that every translation that is credible on BibleGateway and Blueletter.com translates John ch 1 with the personal pronouns “He”, him, his refering to the “Word” that was with God and “was God”! So the KJV committee had some good reasons for using personal pronouns.

Yes, and it does not hurt my feelings. Why should it? Translators did not write the original so they do the best they can. Fact is, most don't translate everything – they usually use another translation to start with. But I did show you that the Bishop's Bible had “it”. The Bishop's Bible preceded the KJV. Don't forget…the KJV also added the famous Johannine Addendum too (1 John 5:7). So bias can creep in over time.

Quote

So you suppose that changing “it” to “he” returned the text to original meaning? I guess you can lean on that if you'd like.

Quote

You seem to be changing your theology as you go along here!

How so? I still believe Yeshua had some form of eternal existance. I've always believed that. I'm just trying to figure out what it was. Scripture is certainly not clear at all in this.

August 7, 2007 at 9:00 pm#63436

Participant

Steve,

Philo of Alexandria was a 1st century Jew. He pretty much developed a doctrine on logos in relation to God. You can read what has been posted about him Here. Many scholars feel he influenced many of the NT writers, particularly Paul and the writer of John's Gospel. I've read alot of his writings so far and the similarities are astounding. I do not doubt scripture though — I truly believe that God can inspire similar thoughts in people.

I've not used his writings to deny or refute scripture, but they have helped me to understand the mindset of a 1st century Hellenistic Jew. Which, the writer of John's Gospel quite obviously is.

August 7, 2007 at 11:50 pm#63470

Participant

kejonn

You say…

Quote

Nah, “word of God” is used in the OT too .

Personally I think it is highly likely.

You said…

Quote

Sorry if I offended you. My response was not toward you but toward the writings that indicated that Yeshua was a created angel which is what the JWs believe, is that Michael is Jesus in the flesh.

If this is what Justin believes then I disagree with it.

You said…

Quote

•But the shadow of God is his word, which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things. For, as God is himself the model of that image which he has now called a shadow, so also that image is the model of other things, as he showed when he commenced giving the law to the Israelites, and said, “And God made man according to the image of God.”{46}{#ge 1:26.} as the image was modelled according to God, and as man was modelled according to the image, which thus received the power and character of the model……

Quite similar thus far, eh?

No not really! Jesus is not “a god”.

August 8, 2007 at 2:30 am#63481