| Unorthodox Theology A forum to discuss/debate theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Full Preterism, Unitarianism)
Orthodox* and Unorthodox members welcome |
 | | 
15th August 2010, 10:00 AM
|  | Senior Member
    
 | | Join Date: 24th August 2006
Posts: 2,052
Blessings: 11,061,552 My Mood 
Reps: 395,307,007,186,748,736 (power: 395,307,007,186,757) | | Originally Posted by Der Alter  If you describe your beliefs using speculation how am I to know you didn't use speculation to form those beliefs?
Main Entry: 1sim·ple
Pronunciation: \ˈsim-pəl\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sim·pler \-p(ə-)lər\; sim·plest \-p(ə-)ləst\
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin simplus, alteration of Latin simplic-, simplex single, having one ingredient, plain, from sem-, sim- one + -plic-, -plex -fold — more at same, -fold
Date: 13th century
1 : free from guile : innocent
2 a : free from vanity : modest b : free from ostentation or display <a simple outfit>
3 : of humble origin or modest position <a simple farmer>
4 a : lacking in knowledge or expertise <a simple amateur of the arts> b (1) : stupid (2) : mentally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] c : not socially or culturally sophisticated : naive; also : credulous
You seem to think so, if the only support for your view you can find is Strong's.
Before getting all huffy with me about the Jewish Encyclopedia you might check the bibliography, the historical sources cited, at the end of each article. It would be a little difficult for any of these guys to quote the JE since it was published ca. 19 years after Edersheim, the most recent, died.
I would prefer documented fact not what you believe!
Please review how I used the Memra article, then show me the scriptural basis for John's prologue, the first 18 verses of the gospel of John?
Is that why the entire NT and most of the early church writings were all in Greek and not all those other languages?
Let me know when you have actually read the ECF, and not basing your opinion on commentary, then your opinion about them might have some merit.
Not a cop-out at all I have given you my answer already, you have been arguing against it all this time. See my post on Memra and Logos which you tried to respond to. Once again: is Strong's definition for the Greek word logos right or wrong? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
__________________
"Walking with a friend in the dark is better than walking alone in the light." ~ Helen Keller ~
|
15th August 2010, 02:00 PM
|  | This is me about 1 yr. old.
 
| | Join Date: 21st August 2003 Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 9,328
Blessings: 1,082,363
Reps: 469,803,519,634,706,496 (power: 469,803,519,634,725) | | Originally Posted by Evergreen48 Once again: is Strong's definition for the Greek word logos right or wrong? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. I'll get back with you on this in about a week, the way you did me. In the meantime here are a couple of links to check Strong's against some lexicon's.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Gingrich & Danker
Greek Dictionary Headword Search Results
__________________ 노인목자 Der Über Älter |
15th August 2010, 03:42 PM
|  | Newbie
 
| | Join Date: 11th August 2010
Posts: 565
Blessings: 22,813
Reps: 10,297,055,791,774,210 (power: 10,297,055,791,777) | | Originally Posted by Evergreen48 Once again: is Strong's definition for the Greek word logos right or wrong? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
you're spinning your wheels trying to get a yes or no answer, I believe he has ansswered it by indirectly saying yes strongs doesn't define logos the way trinitarians use it, but Strongs is for simple people, not smart people and he uses books smart people use.
What I'm getting is he is saying that only simple people rely upon Strongs, and that some ancient Jews, and Greek philosophers had a different def. for logos or memra that is the trinitarian definition of logos/memra. He is saying that JOhn was using logos the way Greek philosophers and some Jews of Christ's day used logos/memra. Vine's pretty much goes along with him on that.
" WORD 1. logos denotes (1) The expression of thought"--not them ere name of an object--(a) as embodyinga conception or idea, e.g., luke 7:7.........(b) a saying or statement,
(1)by God, e.g., john 15.25;Rom. 9:9:.........
(2)by Christ, e.g., Matt. 24.35.....In conjunction with (1) and (2) the phrase "the word of the Lord," i.e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ,........, in this respect it is the message from the Lord delivered with His authority and made effective by His power...; sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances, ................
(II) "The personal word," A title of the Son of God; a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated byt hte statements of doctrine in John 1:1-18, declaring in verses 1 and 2 (1) His diostinct and superfinite Personality, (2) His relation in the Godhead (pros "with" not mere company, but the most initmate communion), (3) His deity; in v.3 His creative power; ........"
Vine's complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, 1996, p.683.
But all vines is doing is definining logos according to the trinitarian understanding, he only gives john 1. 1-18 and 1 john 1 as examples of the logos person use of logos. Thus really it's not a def. but rather just the trinitarian interpretation that he calls a definition. For smart people you know. which really is just greek philosophy and errant Jews use of the greek word logos. I believe that John used logos in john 1;1-18 the way god used the word logos, since all scripture (including john 1.1-18) is god breathed). Certainly god would not use logos the way some errant jews who changed Yahweh in his word to memra, used logos.
Really there is no proof that the word of God uses logos the way greek philosophers, trinitarians, and errant jews used it. that is pure speculation. why not rather speculate that logos/memra is used b y God in his word to mean what it means in def.1 of vines? I say that is more logical speculation, than the former.  |
15th August 2010, 04:36 PM
| | This is me about 1 yr. old.
| | Join Date: 21st August 2003 Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 9,328
Blessings: 1,082,363
Reps: 469,803,519,634,706,496 (power: 469,803,519,634,725) | | Originally Posted by Superfast you're spinning your wheels trying to get a yes or no answer, I believe he has ansswered it by indirectly saying yes strongs doesn't define logos the way trinitarians use it, but Strongs is for simple people, not smart people and he uses books smart people use.
What I'm getting is he is saying that only simple people rely upon Strongs, and that some ancient Jews, and Greek philosophers had a different def. for logos or memra that is the trinitarian definition of logos/memra. He is saying that JOhn was using logos the way Greek philosophers and some Jews of Christ's day used logos/memra. Vine's pretty much goes along with him on that.
"WORD 1. logos denotes (1) The expression of thought"--not them ere name of an object--(a) as embodyinga conception or idea, e.g., luke 7:7.........(b) a saying or statement,
(1)by God, e.g., john 15.25;Rom. 9:9:.........
(2)by Christ, e.g., Matt. 24.35.....In conjunction with (1) and (2) the phrase "the word of the Lord," i.e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ,........, in this respect it is the message from the Lord delivered with His authority and made effective by His power...; sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances, ................
(II) "The personal word," A title of the Son of God; a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated byt hte statements of doctrine in John 1:1-18, declaring in verses 1 and 2 (1) His diostinct and superfinite Personality, (2) His relation in the Godhead (pros "with" not mere company, but the most initmate communion), (3) His deity; in v.3 His creative power; ........"
Vine's complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, 1996, p.683.
But all vines is doing is definining logos according to the trinitarian understanding, he only gives john 1. 1-18 and 1 john 1 as examples of the logos person use of logos. Thus really it's not a def. but rather just the trinitarian interpretation that he calls a definition. For smart people you know. which really is just greek philosophy and errant Jews use of the greek word logos. I believe that John used logos in john 1;1-18 the way god used the word logos, since all scripture (including john 1.1-18) is god breathed). Certainly god would not use logos the way some errant jews who changed Yahweh in his word to memra, used logos.
Really there is no proof that the word of God uses logos the way greek philosophers, trinitarians, and errant jews used it. that is pure speculation. why not rather speculate that logos/memra is used b y God in his word to mean what it means in def.1 of vines? I say that is more logical speculation, than the former. Here is the relevant definition of Logos from Joseph Thayer's lexicon. The complete definition is two pages long.III. In several passages in the writings of John o logos denotes the essential Word of God, i. e. the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in the creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah and shone forth conspicuously from his words and deeds: Jn. i. 1, 14; (1 J n . v. 7 Rec.) ; with tis zwhs added (see Zoe 2.a.), 1 J n . i. 1; Tou theou, Rev. xix. 13 (although the interpretation which refers this passage to the hypostatic Logos is disputed by some, as by Baur, Neutest. Theologie p . 216 sq.).
Respecting the combined Hebrew and Greek elements out of which this conception originated among the Alexandrian Jews, see esp. Leuke, Com. ub.d. Evang. des Johan. ed. 3, i. pp. 249-294; [cf. esp. B. D. Am. ed. s. v. Word (and for works which have appeared subsequently, see Weiss in Meyer on J n . ed. 6 ; Schurer,Neutest. Zeitgesch. § 3 4 I I . ) ; Bp. Lghtft. on Col. i. 15 p . 143 sq.; and for reff, to the use of the term in heathen, Jewish, and Christian writ., see Soph. Lex. s. v. 10].
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Novi Testamenti
Translated Revised And Enlarged By Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D. pp 381-2 And OBTW Thayer was a Unitarian. Ooops!
__________________ 노인목자 Der Über Älter |
23rd August 2010, 06:34 PM
| | This is me about 1 yr. old.
| | Join Date: 21st August 2003 Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 9,328
Blessings: 1,082,363
Reps: 469,803,519,634,706,496 (power: 469,803,519,634,725) | | 
Things that go bump in the night.
__________________ 노인목자 Der Über Älter |
31st August 2010, 09:06 AM
|  | Senior Member
46  
| | Join Date: 3rd January 2008 Location: South Woodham Ferrers, Essex.
Posts: 1,222
Blessings: 61,441 My Mood 
Reps: 56,897,222,442,323 (power: 56,897,222,449) | | | It's clear that Jesus pre-existed his human birth. Otherwise his death would of been of superficial value rather than the all encompasing sacrifice that it was. A perfect life (Jesus) for another perfect life (Adam). However, something cropt up that interested me. Some think that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Well, he isn't. This title belongs to God and to him alone. Jesus stated in Revelation that he was the First and the Last, not the Alpha and Omega. The two titles are not interchangeable, nor are they meant to be. If Jesus was the Alpha and Omega then he would not of said he was the First and the Last, do you see?
God knows what will happen to a matter before it is realised. His purpose as found at Genesis 3:15 is only half fulfilled, yet he knows what the end result will be. So in what way is Jesus the First and the Last? There may be two answers. Firstly, as the first creative act by God. All other creation has come into existence through Jesus as God's Master Worker (Prov.8:22-31). Secondly, as the first to be resurrected by God after his death and the last one, because God has charged Jesus with the task of bringing death to nothing (1Cor. 15:20-28) and bringing mankind back to perfection.
So when the two titles, the Alpha and Omega, and the First and the Last were mentioned, they are dealing with two different entities: the Father and His Son. They are not the same entity but they share the same values. Is that not reasonable? |
31st August 2010, 12:35 PM
|  | underwater me
64
| | Join Date: 29th July 2005
Posts: 6,996
Blessings: 135,755
Reps: 25,016,098,866,739,784 (power: 25,016,098,866,753) | | Originally Posted by woden It's clear that Jesus pre-existed his human birth.
It is clear that Jesus did not pre-exist his human birth.
(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
Jesus generation was at his conception/begatting aka "was found with child". Generation means , amongst other things, beginning. Jesus didn't pre=exist his beginning, that is if you want to stay in the realm of logical discourse. actually the term pre=exist is outside the realm of logical discourse because something doesn't exist before it exists. Pre-exist is on a par with terms like person of god, where person has no meaning, Jesus is god in his nature, where nature has no meaning, 3 is one, 3 are one,one is three, one are three, an image of something is the thing it is an image of, whatever is in something is that something, all of which are outside the realm of logical discourse, and firmly in the realm of trinity. so you are adopting trinitarian illogic and terminology and thus have no just cause to condemn trinity on the basis of it's illogic. Originally Posted by woden
Otherwise his death would of been of superficial value rather than the all encompasing sacrifice that it was.
the all encompasing sacrifice that the man christ Jesus made for us was his choice to die the second death in the lake of fire in our place.. That is not a superficial sacrifice. Originally Posted by woden
A perfect life (Jesus) for another perfect life (Adam).
you deny scripture that says sin entered by one man and left by another man <Jesus. Jesus was and is a man, a human.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.
Romans 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ. Originally Posted by woden
However, something cropt up that interested me. Some think that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Well, he isn't. This title belongs to God and to him alone. Jesus stated in Revelation that he was the First and the Last, not the Alpha and Omega. The two titles are not interchangeable, nor are they meant to be. If Jesus was the Alpha and Omega then he would not of said he was the First and the Last, do you see?
Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
rev. 22.13 is unclear as to whether it refers to Jesus or not. you assume there can only be one alpha and omega. I assume that both christ and God are the alpha and omega. the alpha and omega of what? the alpha and omega or beginning and end of us the new man. the beginning and end of the new creation of god. the old reation is dieing and in God's eyes is good as dead and gone. ONly the new creation will endure. Originally Posted by woden
God knows what will happen to a matter before it is realised. His purpose as found at Genesis 3:15 is only half fulfilled, yet he knows what the end result will be. So in what way is Jesus the First and the Last? There may be two answers. Firstly, as the first creative act by God.
Colossians 1:18 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.
Revelation 3:14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God: you interpret that to mean first creative act. i interpret it to mean beginning of the new creation of God. Jesus is the last adam , the new man, the new creation of god.
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. Originally Posted by woden
All other creation has come into existence through Jesus as God's Master Worker (Prov.8:22-31). Secondly, as the first to be resurrected by God after his death and the last one, because God has charged Jesus with the task of bringing death to nothing (1Cor. 15:20-28) and bringing mankind back to perfection.
So when the two titles, the Alpha and Omega, and the First and the Last were mentioned, they are dealing with two different entities: the Father and His Son. They are not the same entity but they share the same values. Is that not reasonable?
reasonable i suppose. but also reasonable is that both God the Father and the son are the alpha and omega, the first and the last, beccause they are one (in purpose).
reasonable doesn't equate to true. lots of things are reasonable but are not true. what is not reasonable, is to assume that Jesus is not a man, when the bible clearly and emphatically claims he is a man. your assertion that it wasn't a man who paid our price denys scripture.
__________________
I like being an honorary member of the Angel Corps.
Last edited by 2ducklow; 31st August 2010 at 02:25 PM.
|
20th July 2012, 10:54 PM
|  | YAHWEH Nissi ... Banner
60
| | Join Date: 2nd August 2003 Location: Richmond, Indiana
Posts: 125
Blessings: 84,039 My Mood 
Reps: 456,516 (power: 466) | | | "The Glory I Had With You Before The World Was"?
Originally Posted by Der Alter Which is refuted with one verse, although there are several more.Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. Jesus was praying directly to the father, there was no reason or purpose for him to speak figuratively. Here Jesus indicates he was conscious of having glory with, NOT inside God's mind, God, before the world was, and requested to have that glory restored. Jesus was not asking to return to being a spoken word in a non-existent atmosphere or a plan/thought in God's mind.
"The Glory I Had With You Before The World Was"
Yahchanan [John] 17:5
Do these words mean that Yahshua was personally with the Father from the very beginning? or are they expressive of the fact that Yahweh, as a wise Architect (Hebrews 11:10), foresaw the glory of His completed plan?
The latter without doubt! This is shown beyond question because of the use of similar language in the same manner.
Thus Kepha taught that Yahshua was "foreordained before the foundation of the world but was manifested (made known) in these last times for you" (1 Kepha [Peter] 1:20). Yahchanan [John] describes him as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).
Was Yahshua "slain from the foundation of the world"? Typically, yes, in the sacrifices provided; but literally, no.
In like manner, Yahweh, who knows the end from the beginning, foresaw the glory of His son Yahshua and proclaimed it through the prophets. The ultimate glory of Yahshua was in the mind and purpose of the Father from the very beginning.
He also provided for the ultimate glory of Messiah's followers, so that Yahshua prayed:
"The glory which You gave me, I have given them" (Yahchanan [John] 17:22).
Do Messiah's followers possess his glory now? They do not, they are merely "in hope" of it (cf. Romans 5:2).
How can Yahshua then claim to have given it to them? Only in the sense that he has provisionally bestowed it, foreknowing that they to whom it is given in promise will fulfil the conditions to ultimately receive it in reality.
Thus, an accepted follower at Yahshua's coming could well speak to Yahweh as Yahshua prayed to the Father:
"Glorify You me with the glory that I had (in promise) with You before world began!"
Yahweh foreknows the completed purpose, and knowing that He will bring it to consummation, is able to "call those things which be not as though they are" (Romans 4:17). Shaul taught:
"Yahweh chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, without blame before Him" (Eph. 1:4).
If John 17:5 proves the pre-existence of Yahshua, Ephesians 1:4 must prove the pre-existence of all who are followers of him!
The same language is used of other men whom Yahweh has used in a special way. Of Yeremiah it is written:
"Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations" (Yeremiah 1:5).
Does that prove the pre-existence of Yeremiah? If not, why should Yahchanan [John] 17:5 be used to teach the pre-existence of Yahshua, and so be made to conflict with many other references which speak of him as the son of David born 1900 years ago? Similar language is used of Shaul (Galatians 1:15) and others. When Yahshua returns, his accepted followers will be granted a glory similar to that bestowed upon him. They will be "conformed to the image of Father Yahweh's son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). SOURCE
__________________
[ALL] Praise Be To YAHWEH! "HalleluYAH[WEH]!" Yahshua Gave All Esteem [Glory] To Father Yahweh (Yahchanan [John] 3:34; 4:26; 5:19,30; 7:16,18,28, 8:17,18,28,42,50; 12:47-50; 14:24; 17:8; Mattithyah [Matthew] 20:23; 26:39; Acts 3:22,26). |
20th July 2012, 11:25 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 31st May 2012
Posts: 172
Blessings: 5,073 My Mood 
Reps: 10,009,076,008,043,758 (power: 10,009,076,008,045) | | | There are so many good scripture quotes in this thread, but some lack understanding of
what they are really saying. YES, Jesus is the only begotten son of the FAther. He existed with the Father before the world was. Jesus, under the direction of the Father, created this temporal earth, thats why Jesus came as the Savior also. It makes sense if you think about it. Its plainly written if we just understand. Very good question. |
21st July 2012, 08:28 PM
|  | Newbie
| | Join Date: 19th February 2012
Posts: 73
Blessings: 5,456 My Mood 
Reps: 2,130,384,470,124,395 (power: 2,130,384,470,126) | | | I am sure Jesus has always existed, yet He was only seen by humans as a man, in the period of the Gospels. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
