The "Jesus" we accept, MUST be "PREACHED".

[Dartman]

What you completely missed, apparently, is that the Bible is part of the Church's tradition and teaching, without which there would be no Bible. If, therefore, the Church was dominated by apostates and it itself fell into great apostasy making the Church's historic teaching unreliable that also includes the Bible itself.

-CryptoLutheran

Your theory is flawed in several ways.
1) The majority of Scripture is Old Testament, and pre-dates Christianity.
2) The true Church is instructed BY the Scriptures, guided BY the Scriptures, and conforms TO the Scriptures ..... NOT the other way around.
3) Any organization claiming to be "Christian", which considers the Scriptures subject to THEM is in fact apostate.

 

[Dartman]

And yet the text, explicitly and plainly, identifies logos with the only-begotten Son.

No. The text explains God's word was fulfilled as a flesh and blood baby, born in Bethlehem. And, that he dwelt with the apostles, and the Jews. And, that they beheld his Glory, as of the only-begotten son.

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

Kai ho logos sarx egeneto kai eskenosen en emin kai etheasametha ten doxan autou doxan hos monogenous para patras pleres charitos kai aletheias

And the word flesh became and tented with ourselves and we-beholding the glory this-one glory as only-begotten from father full-of grace and truth

And the word became flesh and tented among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

What was beheld? Autou, the pronoun, refers back to logos,

No, it doesn't.
The pronoun "his" refers to the one that dwelt/tabernacled among them, the monogenous, "the only begotten".

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your theory is flawed in several ways.
1) The majority of Scripture is Old Testament, and pre-dates Christianity.

The writings predate Christianity, having them as a defined collection of Scripture known as the Old Testament post-dates the coming of Christianity because the Christian Church codified the Old Testament Canon in the centuries following the advent of Christ.

2) The true Church is instructed BY the Scriptures, guided BY the Scriptures, and conforms TO the Scriptures ..... NOT the other way around.

How do you know what is and is not Scripture? Do you accept the Protoevangelium of James as Scripture? How about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? The Life of Adam and Eve? Jubilees? How about Enoch? What about the Gospel of Truth? The Gospel of Philip? The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs?

No? You accept the same 39 books as Old Testament, and same 27 books as New Testament as modern Protestants do? Why?

3) Any organization claiming to be "Christian", which considers the Scriptures subject to THEM is in fact apostate.

Again, you're missing the point. Without the Church how do you know what is and isn't Scripture?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No. The text explains God's word was fulfilled as a flesh and blood baby, born in Bethlehem. And, that he dwelt with the apostles, and the Jews. And, that they beheld his Glory, as of the only-begotten son.

It says the logos became flesh and dwelt among them.

No, it doesn't.
The pronoun "his" refers to the one that dwelt/tabernacled among them, the monogenous, "the only begotten".

The text says it is the logos that dwelt/tabernacled among them. "The word became flesh and dwelt among us"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dartman]

The writings predate Christianity, having them as a defined collection of Scripture known as the Old Testament post-dates the coming of Christianity because the Christian Church codified the Old Testament Canon in the centuries following the advent of Christ.

How do you know what is and is not Scripture? Do you accept the Protoevangelium of James as Scripture? How about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas? The Life of Adam and Eve? Jubilees? How about Enoch? What about the Gospel of Truth? The Gospel of Philip? The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs?

No? You accept the same 39 books as Old Testament, and same 27 books as New Testament as modern Protestants do? Why?

Again, you're missing the point. Without the Church how do you know what is and isn't Scripture?

-CryptoLutheran

The compilation into one book is a convenience. I attribute both the compilation, and the content, to God's providence, regardless of WHO did it.
Your attempt to attach some significance to WHO did it is understandable. And, I heartily agree with the idea that we SHOULD examine the Scriptures, and the non-Biblical writings, for our selves, to verify the accuracy of each.

I HAVE examined many, not all, of the books of the Apocrypha, and agree they should be excluded for various reasons, mainly, their content contradicts Scripture. I have examined the Book of Mormon, and came to the same conclusion. I have examined the Koran, and came to the same conclusion.
I have examined the Bible, since I was 5, and have proven to myself, for myself, that it is in perfect harmony, from book to book, other than 1 John 5:7 in KJV, some trinitrian bias in translation, (like "Word" with a capital "W" in John 1, and the masculine personal pronoun for "spirit", "comforter", and "logos"), and a few extremely minor translation issues in other texts.

Your assertion that I accept the 66 books in the Scriptures merely because of WHO compiled them is an erroneous assumption.

 

[Dartman]

It says the logos became flesh and dwelt among them.

And I absolutely agree, it did.

The text says it is the logos that dwelt/tabernacled among them. "The word became flesh and dwelt among us"

-CryptoLutheran

And I absolutely agree, it did.
Just like an architects logos becomes concrete and wood, and we dwell in it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The compilation into one book is a convenience. I attribute both the compilation, and the content, to God's providence, regardless of WHO did it.
Your attempt to attach some significance to WHO did it is understandable. And, I heartily agree with the idea that we SHOULD examine the Scriptures, and the non-Biblical writings, for our selves, to verify the accuracy of each.

So then, each person can have their own Canon based on their own reasoning? Or are you simply stating as a foregone conclusion that we have the "right Bible" in the form of the Protestant Canon simply because, in your belief, that was God's will--and you reach that conclusion based purely on supposition.

I HAVE examined many, not all, of the books of the Apocrypha, and agree they should be excluded for various reasons, mainly, their content contradicts Scripture.

Cart before the horse. If there is a conflict between, say, the Synoptic Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels, and you accept the Synoptic Gospels over the Gnostic Gospels because the Gnostic Gospels disagree with the Synoptics then one could just as easily reject the Synoptics on the same basis in order to accept the Gnostic Gospels; ergo the Gnostic Gospels are Scripture and the Synoptics are to be rejected because their content contradicts Scripture. Thus in my Bible I accept Thomas, Philip, and the Gospel of the Egyptians, but I reject Matthew, Mark, and Luke because they contradict Thomas, Philip, and the Egyptians.

Why is your position superior to my hypothetical position? On what basis are the Synoptics Scripture, but the Gnostic Gospels are not?

I have examined the Book of Mormon, and came to the same conclusion. I have examined the Koran, and came to the same conclusion.
I have examined the Bible, since I was 5, and have proven to myself, for myself, that it is in perfect harmony, from book to book, other than 1 John 5:7 in KJV, some trinitrian bias in translation, (like "Word" with a capital "W" in John 1, and the masculine personal pronoun for "spirit", "comforter", and "logos"), and a few extremely minor translation issues in other texts.

Thus the arbiter of truth is, ultimately, yourself. You determine what is and isn't Scripture. What makes you authoritative here?

Your assertion that I accept the 66 books in the Scriptures merely because of WHO compiled them is an erroneous assumption.

Not my assumption at all. I'm saying that your acceptance of the Protestant Canon is inconsistent with your belief about the history of the Church concerning it being a wholly apostate, fallen institution that radically departed from apostolic and true Christian teaching.

I'm saying you receive an apostate Canon, since the Canon is defined by an apostate (in your view) Church. This is inconsistent and largely boils down to cognitive dissonance on your part.

I accept the Canon of Scripture because of the historic witness of the Church going back to the apostles, and thus have faith that God, working through His holy catholic Church, has kept the Church in true and apostolic faith and that what we have, as the Body of Christ, received down through the centuries as the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures--by the historic consensus and testimony of the Church down through the last two thousand years.

You don't accept that, and so any theory of biblical authority you arrive at exists for no other reason than by arbitrarily saying so, either by avoiding having to think about the question at all or ultimately by establishing yourself as your own authority thereby, effectively, crowining yourself a kind of super-pope.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just like an architects logos becomes concrete and wood, and we dwell in it.

Except that here the logos became flesh, itself dwelt among us, and it was recognized as the only-begotten of the Father. "We beheld its glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father" The glory of the word and the glory of the only-begotten are the same; to behold the word made flesh is to behold who? The only-begotten.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dartman]

So then, each person can have their own Canon based on their own reasoning? Or are you simply stating as a foregone conclusion that we have the "right Bible" in the form of the Protestant Canon simply because, in your belief, that was God's will--and you reach that conclusion based purely on supposition.



Cart before the horse. If there is a conflict between, say, the Synoptic Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels, and you accept the Synoptic Gospels over the Gnostic Gospels because the Gnostic Gospels disagree with the Synoptics then one could just as easily reject the Synoptics on the same basis in order to accept the Gnostic Gospels; ergo the Gnostic Gospels are Scripture and the Synoptics are to be rejected because their content contradicts Scripture. Thus in my Bible I accept Thomas, Philip, and the Gospel of the Egyptians, but I reject Matthew, Mark, and Luke because they contradict Thomas, Philip, and the Egyptians.

Why is your position superior to my hypothetical position? On what basis are the Synoptics Scripture, but the Gnostic Gospels are not?



Thus the arbiter of truth is, ultimately, yourself. You determine what is and isn't Scripture. What makes you authoritative here?



Not my assumption at all. I'm saying that your acceptance of the Protestant Canon is inconsistent with your belief about the history of the Church concerning it being a wholly apostate, fallen institution that radically departed from apostolic and true Christian teaching.

I'm saying you receive an apostate Canon, since the Canon is defined by an apostate (in your view) Church. This is inconsistent and largely boils down to cognitive dissonance on your part.

I accept the Canon of Scripture because of the historic witness of the Church going back to the apostles, and thus have faith that God, working through His holy catholic Church, has kept the Church in true and apostolic faith and that what we have, as the Body of Christ, received down through the centuries as the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures--by the historic consensus and testimony of the Church down through the last two thousand years.

You don't accept that, and so any theory of biblical authority you arrive at exists for no other reason than by arbitrarily saying so, either by avoiding having to think about the question at all or ultimately by establishing yourself as your own authority thereby, effectively, crowining yourself a kind of super-pope.

-CryptoLutheran

Everyone must decide for themselves.
IF you decide to blindly follow Presbyterian teachings, or Buddhist teachings, or Church of Scientology teachings, are you "crowning yourself a kind of super-pope"?

 

[Dartman]

Except that here the logos became flesh, itself dwelt among us, and it was recognized as the only-begotten of the Father. "We beheld its glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father" The glory of the word and the glory of the only-begotten are the same; to behold the word made flesh is to behold who? The only-begotten.

-CryptoLutheran

That is no different than my example, where the actual glory of the building, matches the glory planned by the architect.

And, in contrast to your eisegesis of the text, (interpreting logos with a definition that is NEVER used in ANY Scripture, much less the Gospel of John), my example defines logos as it is used in Scripture.

And, in contrast to the trinity, which is NEVER ...... EVER ..... stated, explained or preached, to ANY audience in the Bible .... my example, and exegesis of the text, HARMONIZES with the statements, explanations and sermons of Scripture.

 

[Hawkins]

The situation is that claiming to be God is truly offensive to the Jews. Doing so may result in against the commandments as interpreted by the Pharisees. On the other hand, it's easier to be clarified if Jesus ever put that He's not God. He however said that "before Abraham, I AM" which is the most obvious claim without the direct wording of "I am God".

Moreover, you won't know better than His direct disciples. And Thomas said,

John 20:28 (NIV2011)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus didn't correct Thomas when he calls Him God. In this case, either Jesus is God as how Thomas called Him. Or he's not God but accepting Thomas' words, which is a deadly sin! We, on the other hand, will have to believe either one or the other.

Humans however, don't need to understand the anatomy of God in order to be saved. It's more or less analogue to that we don't need to make ants to fully understand the anatomy of humans before we can choose to destroy them or save them.

That's why God didn't need to tell the Jews He's a Trinity, until Jesus came to reveal Himself.

 

[Dartman]

The situation is that claiming to be God is truly offensive to the Jews. Doing so may result in against the commandments as interpreted by the Pharisees. On the other hand, it's easier to be clarified if Jesus ever put that He's not God. He however said that "before Abraham, I AM" which is the most obvious claim without the direct wording of "I am God".

Hogwash. The grammatical monstrosity created with this SPIN of Christ's comments is beyond forced. Your acceptance of the artificial capitalization of "AM", is a transparent effort to support one of the flimsiest pieces of "evidence" ever.
Jesus did not literally exist before Bethlehem.
If you look in Gen 3:15, Jesus IS there, even before Abraham was ... as Eve's seed, that will bruise Satan's head. If you look in Jude 1:14,15 Enoch (the 7th from Adam, before Abraham was) foretold of Jesus 2nd coming, If you look in Gen 12:3, Jesus IS there ... according to Paul's remarks in Gal 3. If you look in Gen 49:10 Jesus IS there.
These texts explain HOW Jesus could say " I am, before Abraham was".
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Moreover, you won't know better than His direct disciples. And Thomas said,

John 20:28 (NIV2011)
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus didn't correct Thomas when he calls Him God.

1) Thomas "SAID to him", NOT "calls him".
2)Thomas had JUST ACCEPTED; his God had raised his Lord from the dead, so an exclamation like this is VERY understandable.
3) There is NO WAY you can prove, with just those 5 words, what Thomas meant ..... without the context.

Here is a real life example;

I said to Brenda; "my manager and my wife".

Without knowing the context, please attempt to explain what I meant.

 

[Hawkins]

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
1) Thomas "SAID to him", NOT "calls him".
2)Thomas had JUST ACCEPTED; his God had raised his Lord from the dead, so an exclamation like this is VERY understandable.
3) There is NO WAY you can prove, with just those 5 words, what Thomas meant ..... without the context.

Here is a real life example;

I said to Brenda; "my manager and my wife".

Without knowing the context, please attempt to explain what I meant.

That's more like an explaining away. You need to first understand the Jewish culture. They don't call anyone God under any circumstance as you suggest here.

It's a serious claim to call someone God.

"I AM" is never about grammatical spin. It's all about how the Jews reacted when Jesus said it. You need to read the Bible carefully before you make any comments!

 

[Dartman]

That's more like an explaining away. You need to first understand the Jewish culture. They don't call anyone God under any circumstance as you suggest here.

It's a serious claim to call someone God.

"I AM" is never about grammatical spin. It's all about how the Jews reacted when Jesus said it. You need to read the Bible carefully before you make any comments!

Your comments indicate you didn't really read my post.
I already corrected your error claiming Thomas "CALLED" Jesus "God", yet you repeat your error here.
I already corrected your error, accepting the contrived capitalization of "AM", yet you repeat your error.
News flash, the Jews were wrong.
Jesus corrected them, stating "I SAID, I am the SON of God".
The tenets of trinitarian theory UNIQUE to that theory, force the trinitarian to accept ludicrous concepts.
These ludicrous concepts include, but are not limited to; pre-existence, incarnation, immaterial entities, and the ability to remove immortality.
NONE of the concepts are consistent with the rest of Scriptures, or with the real world.
The ONLY reason trinitarians can get away with these ludicrous claims, with the majority of people, is that the doctrine has been considered "mainstream" for about 1,700 years!
In reality, these ludicrous claims SHOULD demand EXTRAORDINARY evidence!
That evidence is plainly lacking.

 

[Hawkins]

Your comments indicate you didn't really read my post.
I already corrected your error claiming Thomas "CALLED" Jesus "God", yet you repeat your error here.
I already corrected your error, accepting the contrived capitalization of "AM", yet you repeat your error.
News flash, the Jews were wrong.
Jesus corrected them, stating "I SAID, I am the SON of God".
The tenets of trinitarian theory UNIQUE to that theory, force the trinitarian to accept ludicrous concepts.
These ludicrous concepts include, but are not limited to; pre-existence, incarnation, immaterial entities, and the ability to remove immortality.
NONE of the concepts are consistent with the rest of Scriptures, or with the real world.
The ONLY reason trinitarians can get away with these ludicrous claims, with the majority of people, is that the doctrine has been considered "mainstream" for about 1,700 years!
In reality, these ludicrous claims SHOULD demand EXTRAORDINARY evidence!
That evidence is plainly lacking.

You need to read the Bible again. You are correcting nothing. AM doesn't need to be capital or small letters, that's not the point. "I AM" is the phrase offending the Jews, that's why they tried to stone Jesus when He said it. They chose to stone Jesus because "I AM" in the Jewish language means God. It is because God never told the Jews His true name. When asked God answered with "I AM who I am".

As for Thomas calling Jesus God, Jesus never corrected him at the scene. It it a deadly sin if He didn't do so while He's not God. Jesus said that He's son of God is never an answer to Thomas. It's you who tried to spin the Thomas scenario!

Here's the exact scenario:

John 20:24-31 (NIV2011)
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[Dartman]

You need to read the Bible again. You are correcting nothing. AM doesn't need to be capital or small letters, that's not the point. "I AM" is the phrase offending the Jews, that's why they tried to stone Jesus when He said it.

No, the phrase "ego emi" isn't of any special significance whatsoever. The phrase in Exodus 3 isn't translated "ego emi" in the LXX, it is the phrase "O On".

They chose to stone Jesus because "I AM" in the Jewish language means God. It is because God never told the Jews His true name. When asked God answered with "I AM who I am".

Incorrect, in the LXX God answered "I am(ego emi) THE BEING (O On)" and later in the verse, Jehovah/YHVH says; "Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING (O On) has sent me unto you."

As for Thomas calling Jesus God, Jesus never corrected him at the scene.

Of course not, Thomas didn't call him "God", Thomas merely praised both his God, and his Lord to Jesus... IMMEDIATELY after recognizing that his God had raised his Lord from the dead!!

The trinitarian contrived SPIN of this text, is in blind denial of the context.

Why didn't you address my question;
Here is a real life example;

I said to Brenda; "my manager and my wife".

Without knowing the context, please attempt to explain what I meant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is no different than my example, where the actual glory of the building, matches the glory planned by the architect.

And, in contrast to your eisegesis of the text, (interpreting logos with a definition that is NEVER used in ANY Scripture, much less the Gospel of John), my example defines logos as it is used in Scripture.

And, in contrast to the trinity, which is NEVER ...... EVER ..... stated, explained or preached, to ANY audience in the Bible .... my example, and exegesis of the text, HARMONIZES with the statements, explanations and sermons of Scripture.

You also seem to want to intentionally ignore the great big backdrop of Hellenistic culture and the philosophical undertones of what "the logos" would have meant to to people two thousand years ago. Your argument that I'm "interpreting logos with a definition that is never used in any Scripture, much less the Gospel of John" stands a priori since if the logos of John's prologue is being used in a specific way, that is how the rest of the text is to be interpreted. It is precisely the way John speaks about the logos, as the divine word, reason, logic through which all things came into existence, that provides us with the definition of logos and its connection with how it was conceived in the Greek philosophers which is here appropriated by John for a special purpose.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dartman]

You also seem to want to intentionally ignore the great big backdrop of Hellenistic culture and the philosophical undertones of what "the logos" would have meant to to people two thousand years ago.

Your acceptance of pagan philosophy as a support for your theories speaks volumes. Obviously, you utterly lack Scriptural support, and in desperation you will clutch at ANY available straw. It is precisely these pagan philosophical notions, from which the pre-trinitarian "church fathers" were inadequately converted, that perverted the Gospel held by the TRUE Church.

Your argument that I'm "interpreting logos with a definition that is never used in any Scripture, much less the Gospel of John" stands a priori since if the logos of John's prologue is being used in a specific way, that is how the rest of the text is to be interpreted.

Your rationalization is a classic example of 'circular logic'.
You are attempting to re-define logos, based on your conclusion that John has written a prologue, and you know it's a prologue, because he uses logos differently in that text.

It is precisely the way John speaks about the logos, as the divine word, reason, logic through which all things came into existence, that provides us with the definition of logos..

I have absolutely NO problem with THIS definition, and usage of logos.

and its connection with how it was conceived in the Greek philosophers which is here appropriated by John for a special purpose.

Hogwash. Your attempt to alter John's usage of logos in the light of pagan philosophy illustrates your compromised/polluted doctrine.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Look, here's the problem:

The Bible is an anthology of VERY heterogeneous texts, but all the younger ones have been written with a specific spin on the older ones, imbuing them with new, originally unintended meaning.

Take Genesis, for example. Clearly a polytheistic myth originally, where El and his sons (the Elohim, or gods) are in charge.
Judaism moved from heno- to monotheism, conflated El with YHVH, and got rid of all the others - so "Elohim" was re-interpreted as a majestic plural, the "sons of El" became angels, and when El addresses the other gods after throwing Adam and Eve out of Eden, he's just talking to himself.

Christians, in turn, sometimes re-imagine that "monologue" as a conversation between the separate parts of the trinity, with the Father adressing the Son and the Spirit.

It's all a sleight-of-hand, a moving of goalpost, a retcon.
All the Abrahamics do it. Just think of muslims trying to substantiate that the New Testaments contains prophecies pointing to Muhammad, or retconning Ishmael into the son who was to be sacrificed by Abraham.

 

[Hawkins]

No, the phrase "ego emi" isn't of any special significance whatsoever. The phrase in Exodus 3 isn't translated "ego emi" in the LXX, it is the phrase "O On".

Incorrect, in the LXX God answered "I am(ego emi) THE BEING (O On)" and later in the verse, Jehovah/YHVH says; "Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING (O On) has sent me unto you."

Of course not, Thomas didn't call him "God", Thomas merely praised both his God, and his Lord to Jesus... IMMEDIATELY after recognizing that his God had raised his Lord from the dead!!

The trinitarian contrived SPIN of this text, is in blind denial of the context.

Why didn't you address my question;
Here is a real life example;

I said to Brenda; "my manager and my wife".

Without knowing the context, please attempt to explain what I meant.

You are side-tracking the argument. You never face the argument saying that the Jews chose to stone Jesus and why?