- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi W,
So if the scholars are few and scattered then they are wrong
just because they are not following the majority view?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 15 2007,08:43) Hi W,
So if the scholars are few and scattered then they are wrong
just because they are not following the majority view?
NHWhy dont you take up the task then?
Show me why over 600 scholars should be mistrusted.
Do you have a degree in Biblical Greek or Hebrew or Arabaic languages?
Neither do I so I either study the languages and become an expert or I trust the Holy Spirit and the writtings we have.
Its not a matter of just the majority, it is also a matter of credibility, and I have seen no credibility in the NWT nor in the sources he quotes.
Are you just being contentious now NH?
Surely you are not defending the JWs belief that Michael the arch Angel is Jesus in the flesh?
For you yourself said the “Word was God”.
For worshippingjesus
You ask –
Do you have any degrees in Hebrew, Greek or Latin? What is your credentials?
Response – in fact I have a degree in theology and 35 years of study of the word. I can also read a reference work. Do you have any degrees?
Secondly – You better ignor all the apostles other then Paul because they had no degrees in Greek or Hebrew.You state –
This is a real problem here, that many attack the scriptures that we have and do so by quoting scattered antagonist and unbelievers who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.Response –
I could not have said it better about those who promote the Trinity.You say –
You say many have come here giving very clear difinitions of Jn 1:1.As far as I know there has been no credible scholars or anyone with any authority in Greek, Hebrew or Latin here giving explanations for John 1:1.
Response –
And yet you constantly say that Logos in John means Jesus. Are you an authority in Greek, Hebrew or Latin? I have seen no scholars defending your take on Logos.You say –
So you throw accusations at me because I hold to the written word that we have, and accuse me of following constantine.Response –
The beginning of Trinitarian doctrine started with Constantine formulating the concept of Christ and God being of the “same substance” . This was followed by the Nicean Creed that began detailing the idea of the Trinity. So the root of the false doctrine lies with Constantine. If you follow the Trinity then the root of your doctrine was detailed by Constantine and the Nicene Council.You state –
But I trust in the scriptures that we have and there interpretations of John 1:1.Response –
Do you? Then why do you replace the term “word” with the name Jesus? You trust that logos means Jesus in a half dozen scriptures when it clearly means statement/speech/idea or plan in over 300 other places. Do you only trust in the scriptures that promote your doctrinal stand?You say –
If you dont believe the scriptures, what source do you have?Response –
I do. I believe that I cannot arbitrarily change the meaning of logos in 6 or 8 places when it is contrary to over 300 times it is used elsewhere
.
I cannot change the meaning to something that would not fit with the term as it was understood and used in common language of the time.I cannot change the meaning if it shows what would have to be a deception on John’s part to hide the definition. It makes no sence for John to use the word Logos if he meant Jesus. If he meant John 1 to mean Jesus why would he use a term that would give a different understanding to the Greek speaking world of the time. His purpose was to spread the gospel not hide it.
I cannot change the meaning to support my doctrine.
You say –
You seem to reject over 600 sholars and the many translations that they are responsible for.Response –
On the contrary. I accept their use of the term “word” with it’s meaning as defined by the other times it is used in scripture. I accept their primary definition of Logos as being a statement/speech/idea or plan.
You say you trust the scriptures yet you accept a meaning for Logos (in 6 or 8 scripture) that does not fit anywhere else in scripture, while I on the other hand use the definition as it is used over 300 times. I have taken my definition from the overall context of scripture. Where did you get yours?
What is hidden by you is your reason for accepting a meaning other then the primary one. What is hidden by you is why you or some scholars find a totally different meaning for Logos then the rest of scripture. Could it be preconceived ideas of doctrine (rather then scripture) that guides you and them to your conclusions?You state –
It seems to me my friend rather than making broad accusations concerning my beliefs being wacked, that you should present some “Evidence” that what I teach is false.Response –
Do I need to post the over 300 times Logos is used in scripture in which the meaning is statement/speech/idea or plan? Is that enough preponderance of evidence? I have already given proof from a functional standpoint. It makes no sence for God to inspire John to use a term that would be misunderstood by the Greek speaking world of the time.You state –
Or at least tell me why you follow the Arians and there rejection of John 1:1 and the Deity of Christ.Response –
I do not know if I am a follower of Arius or not. Neither does anyone else. All of Arius’ writings detailing his beliefs were destroyed by the church. The only record we have is that of his accusers. This is a totally biased source and therefore cannot be held as accurate. I reject your interpretation not based on Arius but by the definition of Logos in the scriptures themselves.You state –
Or show me by scriptures why you think the scholars are all liars.Response –
What scholars? You say you use scripture. That is exactly what I have used.
Again do I need to post the 300 times Logos is used not meaning Jesus?You state –
Why not go around with me again. Lets see your poof and evidence that the many translations we have are false in rendering John 1:1 as…Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Response –
I never said this was a false rendering of the verse. I say that when you read this verse you put a meaning on the term “word” that does not fit in the vast overwhelming usage throughout scripture.
When you read this verse your mind renders it like so –
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was GodThe common meaning of the term in that period of history gives no reason to accept a rendering of that sort. The same can be said for the mass evidence in scriptural usage of the term. There is no evidence that the term “Word” means Jesus.
You state –
John confirms this toward the end of his Gospel by presenting Thomas bold acclamation that Jesus was his “Lord and God”, without rebuke or correction, and then emmediatly says this was a sign.How do you explain this?
This is unambiguous!
Response –
I will be happy to explain it though I doubt you will receive it. Your proof is that because Thomas called Jesus “my Lord and My God” that therefore Jesus is literally God.
First the term “Lord”. The meaning of this word does not indicate Deity. Kurious (Gr) means master or one in authority or do you reject that meaning too. It is not a name for God.
As to the use of the term “God”?
This was written by a Hebrew with a Hebrew mindset. The Hebrews wrote and thought in concrete terms. They wrote in aligory. That is why Jesus taught by way of parable. When A Hebrew saw a revealing of God they treated with and acted as if in the presence of God himself.
This is evident in Moses encounter with the burning bush. Not only did Moses call the bush God, the bush itself said it was God. According to your method of scriptural interpretation, this section of scripture clearly proves that God is literally a burning bush. In fact there is much more evidence that God is a burning bush then there is that Logos can be rendered Jesus. Moses said the bush was God. God spoke from the bush and said he was God. Do you believe that God is a burning bush? If your form of biblical interpretation holds true in John then it has to hold true in the story of Moses. Or does your interpretive process change bassed on what fits your doctrine?You use other verses in John to indicate that your concept of Logos is correct and yet again you ignor the vast majority that indicate something else.
Look at just the usage in John —-
In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.
Joh 1:14 –
And the
Word (logos) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.In these verses and a few others you claim that the term “word” indicates or equals Jesus. Was John terribly confused in that for two verses he meant Logos to indicate Jesus and the other 32 times it is used to mean something completely different?
Joh 2:22 –
So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word (logos) which Jesus had spoken.Joh 4:37 –
“For in this case the saying (logos) is true, 'One sows and another reaps .'Joh 4:39 –
From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word (logos) of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things thatI have done .”Joh 4:41 –
Many more believed because of His word; (logos)Joh 4:50 –
Jesus said to him, “Go; your son lives .” The man believed the word (logos) that Jesus spoke to him and started off.Joh 5:24 –
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, (logos)and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.Joh 5:38 –
“You do not have His word (logos)abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.Joh 6:60 –
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; (logos) who can listen to it?”Joh 7:36 –
“What is this statement that He said, 'You will seek Me, and will not find Me; and whereI am, you cannot come '?”Joh 7:40 –
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, (logos) were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet .”Joh 8:31 –
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, (logos) then you are truly disciples of Mine;Joh 8:37 –
“I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word (logos) has no place in you.Joh 8:43 –
“Why do you not understand whatI am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. (logos)Joh 8:51 –
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word (logos)he will never see death .”Joh 8:52 –
The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word (logos), he will never taste of death .'Joh 8:55 –
and you have not come to know Him, butI know Him; and ifI say thatI do not know Him,I will be a liar like you, butI do know Him and keep His word. (logos)Joh 10:19 –
A division occurred again among the Jews because of these words (logos).Joh 10:35 –
“If he called them gods, to whom the word (logos) of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken ),Joh 12:38 –
This was to fulfill the word (logos) of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED ?”Joh 12:48 –
“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word (logos) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.Joh 14:23 –
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (logos); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.Joh 14:24 –
“He who does not love Me does not keep My words (logos); and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.Joh 15:3 –
“You are already clean because of the word (logos) whichI have spoken to you.Joh 15:20 –
“Remember the word thatI said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master .' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word (logos), they will keep yours also.Joh 15:25 –
“But they have done this to fulfill the word (logos) that is written in their Law, 'THEY HATED ME WITHOUTA CAUSE .'Joh 17:6 –
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word (logos).Joh 17:14
“I have given them Your word (logos); and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even asI am not of the world.Joh 17:17 –
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word (logos) is truth.Joh 17:20 –
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word (logos);Joh 18:9 –
to fulfill the word (logos) which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given MeI lost not one .”Joh 18:32 –
to fulfill the word (logos) of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.Joh 19:8 –
Therefore when Pilate heard this statement(logos), he was even more afraid;Joh 19:13 –
Therefore when Pilate heard these words (logos), he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.Joh 21:23 –
Therefore this saying (logos) went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “IfI want him to remain untilI come, what is that to you?”You ask for evidence, I give you the book of John. You have 4 times you claim Logos to mean Jesus and I have 32 times it means something else. This does not even include the other 300 times it is used in scripture in which all but a few clearly indicate something other then Jesus.
A few Questions for you –
Can you give me a reasonable explanation why John would use the term “Logos” when he could have been very clear by just using the name “Jesus”?
What furtherance of the Gospel does it promote?You claim that you only use proof from the word, then please answer this;
Can you tell me on what basis you judge the term logos to mean Christ in a few verses when hundreds of other verses say it means otherwise?
If, as you claim, you use the word as proof then what should be indicated by the over 300 times a word is clearly used to mean statement/speech/idea or plan as compared to 8 scriptures where it is claimed to mean Christ. Who is being unfair with the overwhelming majority of scripture?Finally I will use a method as has been taught to me. Any doctrine, regardless of alledged proof texts, must pass the simple test of function.
All dotrine, if true, must support, defend and promote the overall plan of God for man.
I give you certain truths.
God is a Spirit being. He cannot become a man.
Neither can God be fully man and full God because this causes a meaningless and absurb conclusion. You cannot have one being that is temptable and non temptable at the same time. You cannot have one being that is failable and non failable at the same time.Finally – If Jesus is in any part God, then we can never become like Him. Nothing he did or overcame can really apply to us. He cannot be our example in his miracles, his overcoming sin, his relationship with his father, or his resurrection. The concept of Christ being God makes the plan of God, to have Christ as our example, impossible to complete.
This “fully God and fully man (or dual nature as some call it) makes Jesus non human since we have only our single human nature. The nature of a being is the very core of what makes that creature what it is.
For God to judge us with a single human nature on the basis of a being that has an additional divine nature would be a miscarriage of justice. Will not the judge of all the Earth do what is right?I ask some simple questions in this post. If you have the truth, do not dodge them.
David
You say…
Quote You follow the crowd WJ. I will miss you.
Miss me!
I never was in yoiur camp.Follow the crowds, yep when it comes to the subject at hand, you bet ya.
David
Please give me a list of your credible translations.
I already know the ones mentioned are not credible to you at least for John 1:1.
Hi W,
You ask
“Show me why over 600 scholars should be mistrusted.”Reliance on safety in numbers has never been the wisest spiritual choice.
Deuteronomy 7:7
The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 15 2007,11:03) Hi W,
You ask
“Show me why over 600 scholars should be mistrusted.”Reliance on safety in numbers has never been the wisest spiritual choice.
Deuteronomy 7:7
The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
NHOf course, I shouldnt expect you to do such!
David,
I see you're trying to focus on the translation of John 1:1, so I'll try to stick to that, although the rest of the Bible is pretty relevant here.
The strongest argument I'm hearing from you is that there is a rule of Greek grammar that
Quote “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.”
So, it seems that a lot of the non-trinitarian, and non-JW translators favor a qualitative understanding of John 1:1, saying that the Logos had the same nature as God. I'm not a greek scholar so I can't comment on whether or not this is legitimate.But I think the critical issue then becomes, whether or not God's nature is entirely unique to Him, or if angels and believers share in it? I'm glad to see you considering both sides to this -that God is uncreated, and therefore entirely other; but that God is called a Spirit, as the angels are called spirits, and that “theios” is used of God in Acts 17:29. My first reaction to this is that we should distinguish between the Greek for divine, theios, and the Greek word for deity or Godhead, which I believe is theotokes (I'm away from my interlinear). I believe there is a difference.
But I would say, generally, that God really is completely other. I don't believe He is “made of the same stuff” as the angels (not quoting you, just highlighting the awkwardness of that language). This seems to come down to God being Spirit, and theios. I don't believe that the angel spirits are the same type of Spirit that God is. And theios seems to come down to Acts 17:29 and 2 Peter 1:4, because those are the only verses that mention it, right? I can only speak in these general terms now, as I am away from my interlinear, but my point is, if God's nature is entirely unique to Him, then if the Logos has that nature, that means He is God.
Tim
John 1:1 in a literal translation reads thus: “In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.”
Notice that it says “God was the word.” This is the actual word for word translation. It is not saying that “a god was the word.”
Let me break it down into three statements.
“In beginning was the word…”
(en arche en ho logos)“and the word was with the God…”
(kai ho logos en pros ton theon)“and God was the word.”
(kai theos en ho logos)— Properly translated as “and the Word was God.”
Zec 7:11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
How does God create?
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.God said with His Word let there be light.
In the beginning was the word. The beginning of creation. The Word was with God. My words are with me before I speak. The Word was God. The Word came from God and therefore IS God being part of God.
Then the Word of God became flesh, and dwelt among us.
God used His Word to create. Everything that was created was created through the Word that came from God.
When God created Jesus, He manifested the Word into His Son. Therefore everything was created by and for Jesus who was the Word with God before He became flesh.
Martian
You say…
Quote
Response – in fact I have a degree in theology and 35 years of study of the word. I can also read a reference work. Do you have any degrees?My question was..
“Do you have any degrees in Hebrew, Greek or Latin? What is your credentials?”So you don’t have any Biblical degrees in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic? You have a “theology” degree, which you failed to mention what degree and what college. And so this “Theology degree and 35 years of study gives you authority to disagree with the translators and the credible translations?
So tell me martian..
What case, gender, and number is “theos” in John 1:1? Why is it anarthrous?How about parsing “en”, its found three times in the verse. Its very imprtant.
Whats its lexical form? Why is the imperfect tense important in the verse?
How does the imperfect tense relate to the prepositional phrase at the start of the verse?
Why is “arche” in dative case? Why does “pros” have grave accent?
Do you understand these questions. I doubt it.
So if the translators believed that John meant the “Logos” in John 1:1 was just a ‘saying’, then why did they not translate it that way?
And why did they all use personal pronouns for the Logos in John 1:3,4,10,14.
No I don’t have a degree, but in my thirty three years of study and ministry, I have heard from all of the critics and unbelievers who cast doubt on the translators and the scriptures that we have, yet they never seem to be able to show any credible evidence that even begins to stack against the current translations we have.
You say…
Quote
Secondly – You better ignor all the apostles other then Paul because they had no degrees in Greek or Hebrew.
What? Did they not know the languages that they penned the scriptures in? LOL
And if they didn’t have the OT scriptures in their languages how were they able to quote so many OT scriptures in their writings? What are you saying? That because they didnt speak Greek or Hebrew that we cant be sure of the translations. Should we doubt the translations?You say…
Quote I could not have said it better about those who promote the Trinity.
Good. Ill say it again…“This is a real problem here, that many attack the scriptures that we have and do so by quoting scattered antagonist and unbelievers who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.”
You say…
Quote And yet you constantly say that Logos in John means Jesus. Are you an authority in Greek, Hebrew or Latin? I have seen no scholars defending your take on Logos.
No. And neither are you. Over 600 scholars that translated the “Logos” in John 1:1 translated it in context of over 40 pronouns in 51 verses ascribed to Yeshua.And some how you think that John means Logos in John 1:1 is not a person but a saying or a plan.
I suppose this same John was “touching” and “seeing” a saying and plan in the following verses…
1 John 1:
1 That which was *from the beginning*, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, (can you see a saying) which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled( can you handle a saying), of the *Word (Logos) of life*;
2 (For the life was manifested, and *we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)*John makes it plain who the “Word” was in John 1:1.
Tell me martian, how can a saying be “with” someone? If the Logos is just a saying or thought or plan, dosnt it have to be *in God*?
You say no scholars defends my take on the Logos, well again over 600 says the “Word was with God” and the “Word Was God”.HMM! A saying thought and plan was “with God” and “was God”?
You are gonna have to do better than that. Your interpretation denys all contextual rules of interpretation and grammer.
You say…
Quote
The beginning of Trinitarian doctrine started with Constantine formulating the concept of Christ and God being of the “same substance” . This was followed by the Nicean Creed that began detailing the idea of the Trinity. So the root of the false doctrine lies with Constantine. If you follow the Trinity then the root of your doctrine was detailed by Constantine and the Nicene Council.Church history says different?
The trinity view was held long before Constantine, by some of the early church Fathers.
Just to mention one, Ignatiius the third Bishop of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John the beloved desciple whos writings you dispute and who was a martyr for his faith said…
Ignatius of Antioch
Estimated Range of Dating: 105-115 C.E.[/U][/B]
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and *Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace*.
Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves *by the blood of God* (see Acts 20:28), ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you.
There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; *God existing in flesh*; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.
We have also as a Physician *the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ*, the *only-begotten Son and Word*, before time began, Or, “before the ages. but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh. John 1. 14. Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.
So the claim that the Trinity was developed centurys after the early church is a lie.
You say…Quote
Do you? Then why do you replace the term “word” with the name Jesus? You trust that logos means Jesus in a half dozen scriptures when it clearly means statement/speech/idea or plan in over 300 other places. Do you only trust in the scriptures that promote your doctrinal stand?And why don’t you believe Johns words who call Yeshua the Word? 1 John 1:1,2 and John 1:1,14 and Revelation 19:13. Further more as mentioned 1 John 1:2 “The life (Logos) was manifested” agreeing with John 1:14, the Word (logos) became flesh.
Is your statement/speech/idea or plan with you or in you? Is your statement/speech/idea or plan “you”? Yet you want us to believe the “statement/speech/idea or plan” is God?
The word “with” (Gr. pros) in Jn. 1.1 means “to, towards” when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated “to” or “toward” (NKJV) or “unto” (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to “something said” coming FROM God.
You say…
Quote
I do. I believe that I cannot arbitrarily change the meaning of logos in 6 or 8 places when it is contrary to over 300 times it is used elsewhere
.
I cannot change the meaning to something that would not fit with the term as it was understood and used in common language of the time.I cannot change the meaning if it shows what would have to be a deception on John’s part to hide the definition. It makes no sence for John to use the word Logos if he meant Jesus. If he meant John 1 to mean Jesus why would he use a term that would give a different understanding to the Greek speaking world of the time. His purpose was to spread the gospel not hide it.
I cannot change the meaning to support my doctrine.
And yet you do change the Apostle Johns meaning of the “Logo” in John 1:1.
So let me see, Greek and Hebrew words cant have more than one application or one meaning. Is this what you are saying?Well then maybe we should look at the Greek word “aggelos” , which means…
a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from GodAlmost exclusively the word is translated “Angels” and literally refers to Angels. 186 times you will find the word in the NT scriptures of that 179 times it is “Angels” and 7 times it is translated messenger.
Example…
Matt 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel (aggelos) of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.Luke 7:27,28
This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.So by your logic the interpreters should have held to the 179 times the context for “aggelos” was speaking of Angels and interpreted Luke 7:27,28 as an Angel from God. However we know John was not an Angel for he was born of a woman. Unless you believe like the JWS that Angels can take on human flesh.
Quote
On the contrary. I accept their use of the term “word” with it’s meaning as defined by the other times it is used in scripture. I accept their primary definition of Logos as being a statement/speech/idea or plan.
You say you trust the scriptures yet you accept a meaning for Logos (in 6 or 8 scripture) that does not fit anywhere else in scripture, while I on the other hand use the definition as it is used over 300 times. I have taken my definition from the overall context of scripture. Where did you get yours?
What is hidden by you is your reason for accepting a meaning other then the primary one. What is hidden by you is why you or some scholars find a totally different meaning for Logos then the rest of scripture. Could it be preconceived ideas of doctrine (rather then scripture) that guides you and them to your conclusions?
You say you accept their use of the term. You mean you think the 600 scholars interpreted “The word was with God” and the “Word was God” and they did not believe Yeshua was the Word? Why didn’t they just say so instead of using around 40 pronouns in John ch 1 referring to the Word. Why didn’t they translate it like this…Jn 1:
1 In the beginning was the idea or plan, and the idea or plan was with God, and the idea or plan was God.
2 The same idea or plan was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made.
4 In it was life; and the life was the light of men.
10 It was in the world, and the world was made by it, and the world knew it not.
11 It came unto its own, and its own received it not.
12 But as many as received it, to them gave it power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on its name:
14 And the idea or plan was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld its glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.I don’t know of any translation that reads like that, do you?
Folly!
You say…
Quote
What scholars? You say you use scripture. That is exactly what I have used.
Again do I need to post the 300 times Logos is used not meaning Jesus?AV – word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not tr 2, misc 32; 330
330 times actually. So if your rule that every time the word Logos is found the translators should have translated it to mean “statement/speech/idea or plan”. Then how do you explain the following scriptures…
Luke 16:2
And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account (Logos) of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.Phil 4:17
Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account (Logos).You say…
Quote I never said this was a false rendering of the verse. I say that when you read this verse you put a meaning on the term “word” that does not fit in the vast overwhelming usage throughout scripture.
When you read this verse your mind renders it like so –
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was GodThe common meaning of the term in that period of history gives no reason to accept a rendering of that sort. The same can be said for the mass evidence in scriptural usage of the term. There is no evidence that the term “Word” means Jesus.
Refer to the above. The translators believed the Logos in John 1:1 to be Jesus by all the pronouns that were used.
Jesus said he was with the Father.
Jn 8:
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; *I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world*.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for *I proceeded forth and came from God neither came I of myself, but he sent me.So who was the Word that came down from heaven, who proceeded from the Father?
Continued…
martian
You say…
Quote
I will be happy to explain it though I doubt you will receive it. Your proof is that because Thomas called Jesus “my Lord and My God” that therefore Jesus is literally God.
First the term “Lord”. The meaning of this word does not indicate Deity. Kurious (Gr) means master or one in authority or do you reject that meaning too. It is not a name for God.
As to the use of the term “God”?
This was written by a Hebrew with a Hebrew mindset. The Hebrews wrote and thought in concrete terms. They wrote in aligory. That is why Jesus taught by way of parable. When A Hebrew saw a revealing of God they treated with and acted as if in the presence of God himself.
This is evident in Moses encounter with the burning bush. Not only did Moses call the bush God, the bush itself said it was God. According to your method of scriptural interpretation, this section of scripture clearly proves that God is literally a burning bush. In fact there is much more evidence that God is a burning bush then there is that Logos can be rendered Jesus. Moses said the bush was God. God spoke from the bush and said he was God. Do you believe that God is a burning bush? If your form of biblical interpretation holds true in John then it has to hold true in the story of Moses. Or does your interpretive process change bassed on what fits your doctrine?What Bible are you reading? Where did Moses call the bush God?
Exod 3:2 NKJV
And the Angel of the *LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush*. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
4 So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, *God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!*”NLT
Suddenly, the angel of the *LORD appeared to him as a blazing fire in a bush*. Moses was amazed because the bush was engulfed in flames, but it didn't burn up. 3 “Amazing!” Moses said to himself. “Why isn't that bush burning up? I must go over to see this.”
4 When the LORD saw that he had caught Moses' attention, *God called to him from the bush, “Moses! Moses*!”NIV
There the angel of the *LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush*. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, *God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses*!”NASB
The angel of the *LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush*; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.”
When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, *God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am*.”I suppose you disagree with these translations also?
Your argument about a Hebrew with a Hebrew mindset is a straw. Its simple..
28 And *Thomas answered and said unto him*, My LORD and my God.
29 *Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed*: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.Do you see any rebuke or correction by our Lord for this Idolatrous and blasphemous act?
So again the translators lied and misinterpreted the scriptures?
You say…
Quote
You use other verses in John to indicate that your concept of Logos is correct and yet again you ignor the vast majority that indicate something else.Look at just the usage in John —-
In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.
Joh 1:14 –
And the Word (logos) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.In these verses and a few others you claim that the term “word” indicates or equals Jesus. Was John terribly confused in that for two verses he meant Logos to indicate Jesus and the other 32 times it is used to mean something completely different?
No John wasn’t confused as John 20:28 and 1 John 1:1,2 and Rev 19:13 shows his meaning of the Word in John 1:1 for these verses show he did mean something different!
You say…
Quote
You ask for evidence, I give you the book of John. You have 4 times you claim Logos to mean Jesus and I have 32 times it means something else. This does not even include the other 300 times it is used in scripture in which all but a few clearly indicate something other then Jesus.So again what you are saying is Greek and Hebrew words always have strict “singular” meanings? I don’t think so.
You say…
Quote
A few Questions for you –
Can you give me a reasonable explanation why John would use the term “Logos” when he could have been very clear by just using the name “Jesus”?Absolutely! Since John was referring to the beginning, he wanted no confusion that Jesus was not conceived and born or became flesh. John was dealing with Gnosticism in his day.
John wanted no room for the heritics to claim Jesus did not come in the flesh. For if he would have called the Word Jesus in the beginning, then that would be in contrast to Jesus being born and given the name by the Angel! Since Jesus was not a Son untill he was born a Son, John used the “Logos” to describe the One that was with God and was God! Also the Greek construction in John 1:1 shows that Yeshua the Eternal life that was with the Father (1 Jn 1:1,2) in the beginning had no beginning. He was and is the ressurection and the life.You say…
Quote What furtherance of the Gospel does it promote?
To know Yeshua, Jesus the Lord from heaven is to know the Father. For the One who was with the Father was and is the exact representation of his substance. To honour him is to honour the Father. No one but Yeshua could claim if you have seen me you have seen God, that’s because he is very God, One with the Father and the Spirit. No one could come to the Father but by him. Jesus made the claim that no man has seen God yet John writes that Jesus has seen God. When did he see God? How do you explain this if Jesus is a mere man?You say..
Quote
You claim that you only use proof from the wor
d, then please answer this;
Can you tell me on what basis you judge the term logos to mean Christ in a few verses when hundreds of other verses say it means otherwise?
If, as you claim, you use the word as proof then what should be indicated by the over 300 times a word is clearly used to mean statement/speech/idea or plan as compared to 8 scriptures where it is claimed to mean Christ. Who is being unfair with the overwhelming majority of scripture?I have already answered this.
You say…
Quote
Finally I will use a method as has been taught to me. Any doctrine, regardless of alledged proof texts, must pass the simple test of function.
All dotrine, if true, must support, defend and promote the overall plan of God for man.
I give you certain truths.
God is a Spirit being. He cannot become a man.
Neither can God be fully man and full God because this causes a meaningless and absurb conclusion. You cannot have one being that is temptable and non temptable at the same time. You cannot have one being that is failable and non failable at the same time.Finally – If Jesus is in any part God, then we can never become like Him. Nothing he did or overcame can really apply to us. He cannot be our example in his miracles, his overcoming sin, his relationship with his father, or his resurrection. The concept of Christ being God makes the plan of God, to have Christ as our example, impossible to complete.
This “fully God and fully man (or dual nature as some call it) makes Jesus non human since we have only our single human nature. The nature of a being is the very core of what makes that creature what it is.
For God to judge us with a single human nature on the basis of a being that has an additional divine nature would be a miscarriage of justice. Will not the judge of all the Earth do what is right?I ask some simple questions in this post. If you have the truth, do not dodge them.
Seems like I know you. Are you m42 as an alias?
Are we suppose to follow a man or God. If we just need to be like men, then why do we have the Holy Spirit of power. Jesus was no mere man friend, open your eyes, a mere man could not hear the prayers and answer them from the whole world, and be everywhere at the same time.
Look closely at these scriptures…
Matt 11
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.What mere man could contain all the the Father has and is, and call to all of humanity to come to him, and then hear their prayers and bear the burdens of the whole world.
Matt 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, *there am I in the midst of them*.What mere man can be omnipresent? As Thomas said, he is “My Lord and My God”.
I have a question for you.
Whos lives in you? The Father, Son or the Holy Spirit?
Blessings
Worshippingjesus —
I do not need any degree of any kind to understand functionality of doctrine.It is very very sad that with all your knowledge you cannot understand a simple truth.
It makes no difference whatsoever what you believe you can prove through scripture if that conclussion is dysfunction within the plan of God. the doctrine of the Trinity comes from just such a conclussion.
The simple fact is that if yopu make Jesus God you have made him non human. Even a dual nature makes him non human.
With this in mind jesus cannot be our example and therefore you have denied the plan of God. Simple.It is a foolish thing for a person to continually attempt to prove (even with a good heart) a doctrine that works against the fullfillment of God's plan for mankind.
WorshippingJesus
Let's assume for a moment that I am all wrong and you are right. I have a couple of questions for you.
Do you agree that part of Jesus' mission on Earth was to be an example for mankind?
Do you agree that it is part of God's plan for us to become like Jesus?If you say yes to these questions then answer m this.
How does maing Jesus a God help me to become like Him?
How can I become like Jesus if He is God?To all in this chain of discussion:
I don't know if you realize it or not, but this is exactly the kind of disagreement and argument that Satan sits back and has a good laugh at. Degrees in theology and languages doesn't determine a person's understanding of the Scriptures. The only university that counts is the Holy Spirit university in which He is the only professor and teacher. And as remarkable as it is he is able to teach each and every person who calls on Him through Jesus Christ. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and your neighbor as yourself. That is the ten commandments in one sentence and it very clearly says that we are to love and obey God whether you call him Jehovah (which is a misnomer), Yahweh, or Yahavah (YHVH). You see YHVH is God's name. Jesus is the son of YHVH. Maybe that is too simple for all of you scholars out there, I don't know. Jesus was in God's plan from the beginning. Draw your own conclusions, but don't argue about picky things that draw you away from the truth and listening to YHVH. He is the creator, our teacher, Father of those who believe in his son and have become born-again by the power of YHVH's Spirit and the greatest friend you can ever have. He is our source to his wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counsel, strength and knowing that you should have the fear of the Lord in your heart because he knows everything about each and every one of you. How do you think he feels about all of your comparisons of great scholars and human knowledge????Quote (martian @ May 16 2007,05:01) Worshippingjesus —
I do not need any degree of any kind to understand functionality of doctrine.It is very very sad that with all your knowledge you cannot understand a simple truth.
It makes no difference whatsoever what you believe you can prove through scripture if that conclussion is dysfunction within the plan of God. the doctrine of the Trinity comes from just such a conclussion.
The simple fact is that if yopu make Jesus God you have made him non human. Even a dual nature makes him non human.
With this in mind jesus cannot be our example and therefore you have denied the plan of God. Simple.It is a foolish thing for a person to continually attempt to prove (even with a good heart) a doctrine that works against the fullfillment of God's plan for mankind.
martianYou say…
Quote
It is very very sad that with all your knowledge you cannot understand a simple truth.I dont understand what your definition of attacking a persons character is.
Is this an attack on me personally?
You say…
Quote It makes no difference whatsoever what you believe you can prove through scripture if that conclussion is dysfunction within the plan of God. the doctrine of the Trinity comes from just such a conclussion.
What, it makes no difference what you believe?Of course it makes a difference what you believe. The Islamic radicals have a doctrine. They believe it is Gods will to kill all the infidels.
The Mormons believe in polygomy.Your belief that the Trinity is disfunctional is wrong.
Simply because Jesus came to show us the Father. No being could be the exact representation of God but one that was with God and who is God.
Jesus said we should honour him “as” we honour the Father. That means that all the praise, devotion, Love, committment and worship and adoration that we have for the Father is to be given to Jesus.
That is functional. The fact is without Jesus as God and man we could not truly know how to follow God.
Jesus said we are to loose our life for him. Follow him. Why? Because in following him we are following God.
I am the way, the truth and the life no man comes to God but by me.
Yet, many places Jesus declares men must come to him.
These are powerfull statements that are exclusive to him.
God is a jealous God and would not share this dievotion and Love and committment to any other being but the one that is one with him. All things were made by him and for him and without him was not anything made that was made, and by him all things consist.
If Jesus is not God and we give this kind of honour and devotion to him then by the 10 commandments, we have broken the first 2.
Is 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and *beside me there is no saviour.*
Hsa 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: *for there is no saviour beside me.*Matt 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and *him only shalt thou serve*.Was Jesus contradicting himself? Yet men run around calling Jesus Lord and Master and bowing the knee to him, while saying they worship the Father, when the scriptures clearly say “you can not serve 2 masters”.
The prophet Zech spoke of the day when his name and his lordship will be one.
Zech 14:
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 *And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives*, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.9 And *the LORD shall be king over all the earth*: in that day shall *there be one LORD, and his name one*.
Whose feet stands on the mount of Olives? Who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords?
It is Yeshau, the Lord from heaven, the one that Yeshua said the scriptures were written about. Jn 5:39
Functionality? How can you have functionality in the plan of God untill you know who God is.
The scriptures is a biography of God, and yet Yeshua takes claim to them.
Hi W,
You say
“To know Yeshua, Jesus the Lord from heaven is to know the Father. For the One who was with the Father was and is the exact representation of his substance. To honour him is to honour the Father. No one but Yeshua could claim if you have seen me you have seen God, that’s because he is very God, One with the Father and the Spirit. No one could come to the Father but by him. Jesus made the claim that no man has seen God yet John writes that Jesus has seen God. When did he see God? How do you explain this if Jesus is a mere man?”Has Jesus, the Son of God, seen a trinity God?
No, as you say, God is the Father.Quote (hope2u @ May 16 2007,05:56) To all in this chain of discussion:
I don't know if you realize it or not, but this is exactly the kind of disagreement and argument that Satan sits back and has a good laugh at. Degrees in theology and languages doesn't determine a person's understanding of the Scriptures. The only university that counts is the Holy Spirit university in which He is the only professor and teacher. And as remarkable as it is he is able to teach each and every person who calls on Him through Jesus Christ. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and your neighbor as yourself. That is the ten commandments in one sentence and it very clearly says that we are to love and obey God whether you call him Jehovah (which is a misnomer), Yahweh, or Yahavah (YHVH). You see YHVH is God's name. Jesus is the son of YHVH. Maybe that is too simple for all of you scholars out there, I don't know. Jesus was in God's plan from the beginning. Draw your own conclusions, but don't argue about picky things that draw you away from the truth and listening to YHVH. He is the creator, our teacher, Father of those who believe in his son and have become born-again by the power of YHVH's Spirit and the greatest friend you can ever have. He is our source to his wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counsel, strength and knowing that you should have the fear of the Lord in your heart because he knows everything about each and every one of you. How do you think he feels about all of your comparisons of great scholars and human knowledge?
hope2uWelcome!
So with all your devotion to “YHWH”, and I assume you mean the Father, where is your devotion to the Son?
And how is it that you should honour the Son as you honour the Father and still keep the first 2 commandments?
Just a sincere question?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
