God's Word in the O.T. and N.T., Logos and Dabar

layne · Jan 30, 2003

That was a fantastic article. I knew that a lot of the bible is taken out of context because of mistranslation, but this really helps clear some of it up.
Why is his research getting scoffed at? Do you people think this Wallace is another "cult leader" or something along those lines?

Future Man · Jan 30, 2003

Short and sweet-

Most of what Ev put forth is refuted in the following rough outline I had drawn up awhile back. I certainly don't want to have to repeat myself.....again!

Back later with some highlights of Ev's latest including his change of stance.

________________________

Objection:

The Greek word logos, although masculine, does not entail a personal being based upon the gender influenced rendering of "He", but should be honestly translated as "it". See William Tyndales's version of the John.

Response:

This objection is essentially fallacious as the immediate context is the prime factor in deciding the rendering of "He" in reference to the 'Word'.

They are, in fact, correct in that the 'gender' of a Greek word has little bearing on the actual "sex" of the subject itself. There are three possible genders for Greek words which are masculine, feminine, and neuter.

If Trinitarians apply the same "sex based on word gender" principle that CDs allude to then the 'neuter' terms would be referenced with an 'it'.

In fact neuter terms are used in reference to the following:

Infants cf..Luke1:41,44; 2:16; 18:15
Children cf..Mark5:39-41
Girls cf..Matt9:24,25; Mark5:41,42
Angels cf..Heb1:14

But yet they are personal beings.

Would referencing the 'Word' in Jn1 as an "it" exclude a personality? Read:

John6:39 "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

In the above we see that the 'to be resurrected believers' are referenced to as an "it".

Malachi 4:2 " But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall."

What is interesting in the above is the reference to the Messiah i.e. "the sun of righteousness" and the reference made with "it". Would the CD exclude this reference as one to a personal being? Not on any reasonable basis. The same fallacy would in turn be applied to the 'Word'.

There is no argument from this vantage point. In fact it is based more on presuppostions and bias rather than any form of legit reasoning.

Objection:

CD's will often cite a particular scripture usually dealing with creation and a literal 'dabar' and then give the following explanation in support of their view that a 'literal word' is being referenced in Jn1. Let's read one of these examples:

Psalm 33:6-9 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

Their prime objection in this instance being:

The "word" is clearly defined here as the spoken word of God - the "breath of His mouth", and His literal command. The text leaves no room for the word as a personal being. Your interpretation of John 1 stands in contradiction to the OT.

Response:

Is this accurate in exluding the 'word' as being used in a titular sense in Jn1?

Read:

Isaiah48:13 "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens..."

Did YHWH literally create the universe with His hands? If the CD asserts that an OT creation account such as Ps33 is to be taken as nothing but literal, then they must also in turn understand the others to be taken as such. In fact it is less "literal" than it is "figurative". Other examples follow suit:

Job 37:10 By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.

In fact this line of reasoning backfires on the opponent as the Messiah [Jesus] is often described as being an ontological 'part' or aspect of YHWH in the OT. For example:

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD
revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a
dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no
beauty that we should desire him.

See also:

Jer10:12 "He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion."

..cf..

1Cor1:24 "....Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God."..cf..Prov8:22

[Note: For an excellent article on Jesus as God's Wisdom, read the material at the following link: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html ]

Figures of speech in Ps33 etc.. no more excludes Jesus from the picture than does;

Isaiah59:16 "And He [YHWH] wondered that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore Hiis arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained Him."

..or..

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

....exclude Jesus as being YHWH's "arm". (See Is59:16)

When speaking of Jesus as the 'Word' you may also want to note the following use of titular titles:

Lion of Judah.. cf..Rev5:5
Stump of Jesse.. cf..Is11:1
Branch of David.. cf..
Word of God.. cf..Jn1:1; 1Jn1:1-2; Rev19:13

Excluding Jesus from Psalm33 etc,. is based more on presupposition that anything else. The basis of rejection lies in a "YHWH" or "God" speaking within the passage and that this must therefore mean that Jesus is not in view. This line of reasoning is merely assuming what one already holds to i.e. "the Father only is God" and excluding the possiblilty that the Son is also God.

As far as the Trintarian view goes we could have the following:

Psalm 33:6-9 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his [Jesus] mouth.
He [Jesus] gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he [Jesus] layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him [Jesus].
For he [Jesus] spake, and it was done; he [Jesus] commanded, and it stood fast.

Or the Father vice versa. This is the Trinity working in harmony as we also see the Spirit's work in Gen1:2, Job33:4 etc,.

Jesus is the intermediate agent of creation. He was the means through [Gk: 'dia'] which God made the heavens and the earth. See this consistent language used in 1Cor8:6, Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3, Col1:16, Heb1:10-12.

In light of this, a "God said.." does not exclude Jesus from being the speaker or mover. To do so is based on the presupposition that Jesus is not God.

An argument can also be demonstrated from the theophanic view, or even merely from the perspective of "represention and agency". Read:

Exo 3:2 And the Angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Note that the 'Messenger of YHWH' is the one who is said to appear within the flaming bush. Now compare with:

Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Note here that the voice coming from the bush is identified as being that of YHWH.

Although it is the "Angel of the Lord" speaking, it is accredited to 'God'. See also the attributation of 'God' or 'YHWH' to Jesus in the following cross-references: Mark12:26..cf..Acts7:30-31; Zech14:3-4..cf..Acts1:11-12.

With this in mind let's read once more and compare:

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Cf..Jn1:1-3

Ex 3:4 God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.. Cf..vs2

Future Man · Jan 30, 2003

Objection:

Of course one of the following replies you may recieve to the above is something likened unto this:

You claim that Jesus IS the Word, while the OT says that the Word was God's spoken word. The Word is therefore defined for us by the OT. You attempt to redefine it in John 1, but that won't work.

Response:

This of course assumes that the 'Logos' is meant to be a literal 'word' such as one spoken into the air.

Jesus being titled as the 'Word' no more excludes Jesus as the 'speaker of the word' any less than the 'sower' is excluded from 'doing the sowing'.

In fact it is wholly appropriate for the Apostle John to address Jesus as the "Word" in that a look at the OT will demonstrate a stark representation of the character of Christ. Read the following and compare to the mission and character of our Lord:

The Word:

Heals-
Psa 107:20 He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

Is a light-
Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Is that in which people put their hopes-
Psa 119:114 Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.
Psa 119:147 I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word.

Highly exalted-
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Eternal-
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.

Note the resemblance to Christ's ministry-
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

See also:

Luk 24:44 And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Joh 5:39-40 You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me. And you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

See also the parallels to God's 'Wisdom':

Pro 8:30 "..even I [Wisdom] was a workman at His side; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.." MKJV

Note in the above the resemblance to Jn1:1-3 in regards to being the agent in God's creation.

Pro 8:35-36 For whoever finds me finds life, and shall obtain favor from Jehovah.
But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; all who hate me love death.

Note the resemblance to the Jesus Christ [Word]. Finding 'Wisdom' is finding 'Life'.
Compare with Jn1:4..cf..1Jn5:11..cf..Jn8:12..cf..Matt4:16.

The bottom line is; If the CD wants to assert that the 'Word' in Jn1 is the "literal atmosphereic vibrations" of the Father from the OT, then they must present you with a direct parallel between the account of Jn1 in it's entirely, and the OT concerning the "word".

For example. Assuming they take the view that a 'literal breath of air' is in question, have them explain to you where vs'4-12 are and demand the "consistence with the OT".

Objection:

One might try to present the following argument:

The really fascinating part is that nobody's ever explained to me why John would call Jesus logos in his prologue if he actually meant "Jesus"!

Response:

This, of course, is simply ludicrus. Let us note the double-standard here.

Read:

Isaiah53:1- Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of YHWH been revealed? He grew up like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.

...or once again..

Isaiah59:16 "And He [YHWH] wondered that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvagion unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained Him."

...another example...

Mal4:2 "But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in it's wings." ..cf..Is9:2, Luke1:78-79.

By their logic, the "sun" here must be literal and not figurative of the coming Messiah.

One must now ask the CD how the authors of the above meant to convey the idea of Jesus without using the name "Jesus" or even "Messiah" within the context.

Note that although the text speaks of the coming Jesus, neither the words Jesus nor Messiah appear here. In fact most Messianic prophecies have dual applications and are therefore not even initially fulfilled in Christ.

We could even take ourselves to the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah9:6 to see the same.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

No sign of "Jesus" here. Another example:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Even in the 'virgin birth' prophecy we see neither of the words 'Jesus' nor 'Messiah' in the text.

The fact of the matter is; the above references were only revealed to us as being applicable to Christ from the revelation of the NT, same as with Jn1:1.

Objection:

The 'Word' in Jn1 is merely a personification. The context in no way implies the person of Jesus until vs14.

Response:

Let's read-

Johns gospel was composed after the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. Therefore note carefully the allusions within the context:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (Genesis 1:26) and the Word was God (Jn20:28, etc).
He was with God in the beginning (Prov8:30).
Through him all things were made; (1Cor8:6) without him nothing was made that has been made (1Col1:16). In him was life, (1Jn5:11,Jn5:26, Jn5:39 etc), and that life was the light of men (Jn3:36Ive given you many scriptures demonstrating Jesus as the Light). The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (..cf..Jn3:19).
There came a man who was sent from God (Isaiah40:3 highway for God..cf..Mal3:1..cf..Jn20:28). He came as a witness to testify concerning that light (Jn5:31-33).., so that through him all men might believe. He himself [Baptist] was not that light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world (1Jn1:8-9).
He [Word] was in the world, and though the world was made-(note the literalism then the jump in the second half to an action of Jesus)- through him, the world did not recognize him [Word]. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him (Jn19:15-16..). Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his [Word] NAME (Jn20:31), he gave the right to become children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God (Jn3:16).
The Word became flesh (1Tim3:16 He [Jesus] appeared in a body.. Phil2:6) and made his [Word] dwelling among us. We have seen his [Word] glory, the glory of the One and Only.

Note the scriptural parallels within the NT. Take care to see how the entire ministry of Jesus Christ is summed up in John's prolouge. You cannot divorce the reference to the Word as creator from the attributation of Savior from within the very context prior to vs14.

Jesus states many of these allusions himself as well as the NT authors . Read:

Jn8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, I AM the LIGHT of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

Jn11:25 Jesus said to her, I AM the resurrection and the LIFE.

1Jo 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of LIFE;

Jesus is that light and life; the Word. Remember that Jesus said that HE was the manna that came down from heaven.

Jn6:32 I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the TRUE bread FROM HEAVEN. For the bread of God is HE who comes DOWN FROM HEAVEN and gives LIFE to the world. they said.from now on give us this bread. Then Jesus declared, I AM the BREAD of LIFE.

More on Jesus as the Light; the Word.

Matthew 4:16 "...the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."..cf..[ 4:16 Isaiah 9:1,2]

John 9:5 "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

John 12:35 "Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going...cf..Jn15:4-6.

John 1:7 "He came as a witness to testify concerning that light [Jesus], so that through Him all men might believe."

Notice how John was to testify of the light [Jesus] the light which is the world..cf..Jn1:10.

Jesus is the word. The context states it too clearly.

Additionally, if anyone wants to make a desperate stab at "personification" or mere "representation" with the above, merely direct their attention to vs12 where the 'Word' has a name on which to believe. Read:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him [Word], to them gave he [Word] power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his [Word] name.."

..cf..

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Objection:

Another significant point - the "world" here (kosmos) is said to be made through the light, not by the light. The light, therefore, is not the primary agent of creation - which, no matter how much you squirm - does not fit the Trinitarian model. Trinitarianism requires Jesus (in his capacity as "God the Son") to have created the world ex nihilo. Simply arguing that he did this on behalf of the Father, doesn't cut it. You need Christ to be the prime mover, because unless he is the prime mover, there is no way you can claim that he is the creator of the world in any literal sense at all. And yet, Scripture precludes this hypothesis.

Response:

This is merely gross misrepresentation of what Trinitarians believe and teach. Citing

Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT:

By him (di' autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is Johns explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names Gods Son as the one through whom he made the ages. Paul pointedly asserts that the all things were created in him (Christ) and the all things stand created through him and unto him (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

As Robertson notes we see this same word 'dia' used to protray Christ as the 'intermediate agent of creation' in passages such as Col1:16; Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3; 1Cor8:6..etc,.

Interesting enough, Prov8-22-30 also portrays Christ as "a workman at His [YHWH's] side" i.e. an 'agent' in the process of creation.

Future Man · Jan 30, 2003

Objection:

In citing John1:1-4:

"The 'Light' [Jesus] is said to be IN the Word, but not the Word itself. You can't be IN something and BE that something."

Response:

This is a rather easy to refute. Simply read the following scriptures:

Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Here we see from the above that the 'Life' is interchangeable with 'Light'.

Jn8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, I AM the LIGHT of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the LIGHT of LIFE."

Jn11:25 Jesus said to her, I AM the resurrection and the LIFE.

In the above we see only a couple of emphatic statements that Jesus IS the 'Light and Life'. Now compare with the below:

Joh 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life IN himself.."

Yet here we see that the Son also is said to have the "Life" IN Himself.

Does this mean that Jesus is not the Life? Not at all as the above scriptures have demonstrated.

Harmonize John1:4 with 1John1:1-2..cf..5:11.

Joh 1:4 IN Him was life, and the life was the light of men;

..cf..

1Jo 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and what our hands touched, as regards the Word of Life.

..cf..

1Jo 5:11 And this is the witness: that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is IN His Son.

..cf..

Rev 19:13 and having been clothed in a garment which had been dipped in blood. And His name is called The Word of God.

Simple. And quite frankly, too hard to miss.

_______________

So much more to add to that.

God bless-AVmetro

The Thadman · Jan 30, 2003

Evangelion before you get too deep into defining Greek words, give my website a peek.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Note: Please e-mail or send a private message to The Thadman if you want information concerning his web site. Promoting one's own web site is breaking Rule 3. Thank you.

Future Man · Jan 30, 2003

That was a fantastic article. I knew that a lot of the bible is taken out of context because of mistranslation, but this really helps clear some of it up.
Why is his research getting scoffed at? Do you people think this Wallace is another "cult leader" or something along those lines?

I for one am "scoffing" at his latest failed attempt to refute the correct meaning of John1. Why? Because, as is typical, he's changed his position from the last one he held. Why me?

Evangelion · Jan 31, 2003

Layne -

That was a fantastic article. I knew that a lot of the bible is taken out of context because of mistranslation, but this really helps clear some of it up.

Glad you liked it.

Why is his research getting scoffed at? Do you people think this Wallace is another "cult leader" or something along those lines?

No, it's because they can't handle the truth. There are certain people who just believe what they're told and refuse to accept any information to the contrary - regardless of how accurate it is.

Just for the record, Daniel B. Wallace is an Evangelical Christian. He also happens to be one of the foremost authorities on Biblical Greek. I disagree with his theology, but I respect his qualifications and expertise.

Others here would prefer to pretend that he just doesn't exist at all...

Evangelion · Jan 31, 2003

Thadman -

Evangelion before you get too deep into defining Greek words, give my website a peek.

Hmmmm. I'll agree that Matthew was written in Aramaic - but the whole NT? That's just not supported by the evidence, I'm sorry to say.

Still, I'll give your Website a peek.

OldShepherd · Jan 31, 2003

Originally posted by Evangelion
OS - Yep.

When it's the truth, you only have to say it once.

Oh and by the way - can I expect a comprehensive rebuttal to Wallace's argument any time soon? No? None at all?

Well then.

One man saying what you want to hear doesn't make it the truth. Why should I rebut Wallace. One scholars opinion, is one scholars opinion. I have already adressed 1 John 5:7 in detail here and here and here.

And here are a few websites which refute Wallace. Can I expect a comprehensive rebuttal any time soon?

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/vindicationof.htm

http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/1jn57.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

And OBTW, since I have visited your "website", and saw you threaten to ban someone for not citing their sources, I know you would never, ever plagiarize, i.e. post the words of another writer as your own. But just for the sake of discussion if it could somehow, hypothetically speaking, be shown that parts of your long bloviated post above was copied from a "Oneness" website, what do you think would be the appropriate sanction, since you ban people for that on your own forum?

OldShepherd · Jan 31, 2003

Originally posted by Evangelion
Layne -

Glad you liked it.

No, it's because they can't handle the truth. There are certain people who just believe what they're told and refuse to accept any information to the contrary - regardless of how accurate it is.

Just for the record, Daniel B. Wallace is an Evangelical Christian. He also happens to be one of the foremost authorities on Biblical Greek. I disagree with his theology, but I respect his qualifications and expertise.

Others here would prefer to pretend that he just doesn't exist at all...

Authorities on many subjects can and do make mistakes. Evangelical Christians are not always right. Daniel Wallace is a fallible human being.

Here is the bulk of Wallace's article with commentary. Here are three words to consider, evidence, proof, documentation. Versus these three words assumption, presumption, and presupposition.

What is evident is that Cyprians interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, [Here Wallace assumes, OS] he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the oneness motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step [Assumption! OS] for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit as part of the text; this is obviously [No, it isnt obvious at all. OS] his interpretation of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording.[Neither does it prove the opposite. OS] One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain.[Speculation on what Cyprian might and might not have done, NOT proof! OS] That he does not do so indicates INDICATES but does NOT prove. OS that a Trinitarian interpretation was [MAY HAVE BEEN] superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprians comment, quoting Kenyons Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: Cyprian is regarded as one who quotes copiously and textually. The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprians quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, and these three are onethe wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.[And Cyprian could also have paraphrased (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit) as the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit]
Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; In the absence of EVIDENCE, that he did NOT is equally likely. OS] but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. [Unlikely perhaps but NOT proven. OS] Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. [Argument from silence, only proves silence. OS.] That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

Future Man · Jan 31, 2003

But just for the sake of discussion if it could somehow, hypothetically speaking, be shown that parts of your long bloviated post above was copied from a "Oneness" website, what do you think would be the appropriate sanction, since you ban people for that on your own forum?

Should I mention the KJV-onlyism site he plagiarized?

OldShepherd · Jan 31, 2003

Originally posted by Future Man
Should I mention the KJV-onlyism site he plagiarized?

You are speaking hypothetically, aren't you? We know that Davey Burke would never plagiarize, knowing how he deals with it on his own website.

OldShepherd · Feb 1, 2003

David Burke,

I repeat my question because I have no interest in responding to a plagiarized, regurgitated, argument from someone else. If I want to argue with them I will go to their website. While we are waiting for you to respond to my question.

"

And OBTW, since I have visited your "website", and saw you threaten to ban someone for not citing their sources, I know you would never, ever plagiarize, i.e. post the words of another writer as your own. But just for the sake of discussion if it could somehow, hypothetically speaking, be shown that parts of your long bloviated post above was copied from a "Oneness" website, what do you think would be the appropriate sanction, since you ban people for that on your own forum?"

I thought I would repost something I posted earlier concerning logoV and how pre-Christian Judaism used "memra", Aramaic for "word", as recorded in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Note that in virtually every occurrence memra is substituted for the divine name יהוה (YHWH). Memra is not the manifestation of the divine power", or "God's messenger in place of God Himself. But, the Memra is literally יהוה (YHWH), Himself, as in this first reference!

Jewish Encyclopedia, Memra
Not "God," but "the Memra,"

is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God" is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me יהוה and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra [vice: Himself] (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/v...id=399&letter=M

When the exiled Jews translated their scriptures into Aramaic, they substituted the word "Memra" for יהוה (YHWH). Thus for the Jews the Word, i.e. "memra" was God. Which is exactly what John said.

Future Man · Feb 1, 2003

Good post Shep. Here's some examples:

http://www.cliffordaweber.com/memra.htm

According to the Targums, which were at one time accepted as sacred Jewish beliefs, God's word is an entity; actually God himself. The Memra' is to be worshipped, served, obeyed, spoken to, and prayed to, as God. The Jewish apostle John (who's Hebrew name was Johanan), no doubt schooled in the Targums several years before he met Y'shua, opened his gospel with these words:

§.John 1:1-3In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (NIV)

Modern Judaism accuses Johanan of borrowing his ideology from Greek philosophy. However, John 1:1-3 was a very Jewish belief back in Johanan's day, and nothing said in that verse would have raised a single objection from any of his peers and contemporaries because that passage reflects 100% Targum teachings that were commonly dispensed in the synagogues of his day.

The Targums taught that God's word, the Memra', reigns supreme upon The Almighty's throne.

¶.Deuteronomy 4:7For what people so great, to whom the Lord is so high in the Name of the Word of the Lord? But the custom of (other) nations is to carry their gods upon their shoulders, that they may seem to be nigh them; but they cannot hear with their ears, (be they nigh or) be they afar off; but the Word of the Lord sits upon His throne high and lifted up, and hears our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions. (Targum Jonathan)

According to the Targums, Jacob, an important progenitor of the people of Israel, worshipped the Memra' as his God.

¶.Genesis 28:20-21And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, "If the Word of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word of YHWH be my God. (Targum Onkelos)

God's Word: A Sentient Being

Whenever the Targum orators came to passages where YHWH is anthropomorphic (visible to humans) or where two or more YHWHs are indicated by the text, the Turgemen often substituted "The Word of the Lord" for one of the YHWHs.

For example in Gen. 19:23-24 the Tanakh has:

§.As the sun rose upon the earth and Lot entered Zoar, YHWH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfurous fire from YHWH out of heaven. (WHV)
The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one YHWH rained fire from another YHWH who was up in heaven. The Targum substitutes "The Word of YHWH" for the first of the two YHWHs as follows:

¶.And the Word of YHWH caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven. (Targum Jonathan)

Targumists paraphrased the text of Exodus 20:1 by substituting "the Word of YHWH" in place of YHWH.

¶.And the Word of the Lord spoke all the excellency of these words saying (Jerusalem Targum)

It was, according to another Targum, the Word of YHWH whom Abraham trusted in:

¶.Genesis 15:6...And Abraham trusted in the Word of YHWH, and He counted it to him for righteousness. (Targum Onkelos)

Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH:

¶.Genesis 22:14...And Abraham worshipped and prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH, and said, "You are YHWH who does see, but You cannot be seen." (Jerusalem Targum)

Although Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH, his prayer was meant for the other one, the the untouchable YHWH who cannot be seen. So the first YHWH, the Memra', acted as a mediator between Abraham and the True God.

The Memra' has a significant role in Abraham's covenant.

¶.Genesis 17:7...And I will establish my covenant between My Word and between you (Targum Onkelos)

¶.Exodus 12:42... Night second; when the Word of the Lord was revealed unto Abraham between the divided parts; when Abraham was a son of a hundred years, and Sarah was a daughter of ninety years, (Targum Jerusalem)

According to another Targum, The Word of YHWH created Man not only in the image of God, but also in the likeness of God's word.

¶.Genesis 1:27...And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them. (Jerusalem Targum)

The Memra' conversed with Moses and commissioned him to lead Israel to freedom.

¶.Exodus 3:14...And the Word of YHWH said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." (Jerusalem Targum)

A partial Targum also expresses that the Word of YHWH was the Creator.

¶.Exodus 12:42...The first night, when the Word of YHWH was revealed to the world in order to create it, the world was desolate and void, and darkness spread over the face of the abyss and the Word of the Lord was bright and illuminating and He called it the first night. (Fragmentary Targum)

The Memra' as Creator can also be seen in the Tanakh.

§.Psalm 33:6...By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, by the breath of His mouth, all their host. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Noah's covenant was between the Memra' and all mankind.

¶.Genesis 9:17...And YHWH said to Noah, "This is the token of the covenant which I have established between My Word and between all flesh that is upon the earth. (Targum Onkelos)

The Memra' is Israel's savior.

¶.Isaiah 45:17, 25...But Israel shall be saved by the Word of YHWH with an everlasting salvation. By the Word of YHWH shall all the seed of Israel be justified. (Targum Jonathan)

¶.Hosea 1:7...But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Word of YHWH, their God. (Targum Jonathan)

According to the New Testament, Y'shua is a human manifestation of the Memra'. Somehow (and who can really understand this?) the Memra' became a Jewish human being who, though coming from God, and must be spoken to as God, and prayed to as God, and worshipped as God, and served as God, is itself subject to the real God.

§.John 1:14...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (NKJ)

§.John 6:38...For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. (NIV)

§.1John 1:1-3...That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word Of Life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Y'shua the Messiah. (WHV)

Future Man · Feb 1, 2003

Future Man · Feb 1, 2003

Future Man · Feb 1, 2003

A few points I couldn't let go:

The Biblical Use of Dabar
The Biblical Use of Logos

This is only the start of Ev's line of "broad brush" equivocation tactics. We may as well demonstrate the "biblical use" of "Word" and then insist that 1Jn1:1-2 or Rev13:9 are not reference to a "personal being".

Ev even states later in his argument the following:

Christ is called the logos (Revelation 19:13, compare with I John 1:1; Luke 1:2) because he constitutes the outworking of Gods logos; the physical reality of a plan which had previously existed in the mind of God.

Which is something with which we do not entirely disagree. As I have cited in previous debates concerning this topic:

Luk 24:44 And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Joh 5:39-40 You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting
life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me. And you are not willing to come
to Me that you may have life.

Now let's read the following:

1Jo 1:1-2 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and what our hands touched, as regards the Word of Life. And the Life was revealed, and we have seen, and we bear witness, and we announce to you the everlasting Life which was with the Father, and was revealed to us.

Rev 19:13 and having been clothed in a garment which had been dipped in blood. And His name is called The Word of God.

No doubt that the two above are made in reference to a personal being. But let's note Ev's inconsistency. When it comes to Jn1:1, the 'Word' *must*, by Ev's assertion, fall in line with the "biblical consistency" regarding the use of 'dabar/logos'. However, when pressed with passages that cannot be twisted in such a manner, he states such as
was quoted above. Essentially, Ev is merely demonstrating gross selectivity. In other words, "It doesn't mean that here, but here it does!". Typical double-standard. What excludes the 'logos' from being a personal being in the first chapter of John? Not the context, as we will go into later. Nothing more, in fact, than personal bias.

A quick glance at the Memra ought to clear things up for Ev.

The logos is God's reason, purpose, and plan. It is what is what we call the "Word of God", whether spoken, written or conceived in His mind. The Old Testament uses the Hebrew
word dabar in the same way that the New Testament uses the Greek word logos.

What Ev needs to do now is decide *which* it is that the 'logos' represents here. Is the 'Word' here the "plan of God" or the "literal spoken word of YHWH?" Ev cites Ps33:6-9 in support of the "literal dabar". However we don't believe that "written word" is appropriate here, nor would anyone think that "plan of God" is interchangeable with "breath of God." If, therefore, John1:1 is a reference to Ps33:6-9 and the like, then Ev needs to be consistent with the rest of
the prolouge. According to Ev's cite:

But if we translated "logos" as "God's utterance" instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the "logos" in verses 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words the revolutionary significance of verse 14 may well be that it marks . . . the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.
Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.

..No allusion to a personal being is made prior to vs14? Therefore verses 1-13 must be referent to, as Dunn puts it, "God's [literal] utterance". Does this mode of interpretation fit the context? One will quickly find that it does not. For instance, when did God's "literal utterance" have a 'name on which to believe' (Jn1:12..cf..Jn20:31)? Did John witness to a 'literal spoken word', or to the personal being of Jesus? Does a literal "breath" have literal "light" IN it? Is 'light' here literal or figurative? It will become clear that 'Word' in John1 is used of our Lord in a titular fashion which is in turn reflective of Christ's nature within the Trinity. See my first reply. See Memra.

Addressing the same:

The conclusion which seems to emerge from our analysis thus far is that it is only with verse 14 that we can begin to speak of the personal logos. The poem uses rather impersonal language (became flesh), but no Christian would fail to recognize here a reference to Jesus - the word became not flesh in general but Jesus the Christ.

Haha. What a turn around for Ev! It wasn't too long ago that Ev admitted that vs4-13 were referent to Jesus, but that vs1-3 were *not* on the basis of the 'Light' being IN the 'Word' and therefore (as Ev asserts quite ignorantly) that the 'Light could not be the Logos'. Again see my first reply.

So which is it, Ev?

Prior to verse 14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of wisdom and logos, the same language that we find in the wisdom tradition and in Philo, where as we have seen we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than an individual divine being as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine "logos" as "He" throughout the poem.

So the logos is only personified as being "witnessed of" regarding John the Baptist? The 'Word' is only "personified" as having a name [Jesus]? Where did Dunn aquire such foolish understanding? See my exposition from the context and harmonization coming later. Dunn ignores the direct parallels to Christ's ministry presented in such verses as 10 and 12. There's no getting around this.

But if we translated "logos" as "God's utterance" instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the "logos" in verses 1-13 to be thought of as a personal divine being. In other words the revolutionary significance of verse 14 may well be that it marks . . . the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.
Dunn, James D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making.

Rather, if we take it as is done in Rev19:13; Jn1:4[..cf..1Jn1:1-2..cf..5:11], Dunn's "problem" disappears. No Trinitarian believes that Jesus was a 'literal spoken thought' in Jn1. This is precisely why Ev's "biblical consistency" argument is a straw man argument which in fact is somewhat reflective of the Trintarian position as to the 'Words' reflective meaning on Christ!

Notice the point that Dunn is making - the logos became Christ. He correctly observs that verse 14 involves the transition from impersonal personification to actual person. Until this happened, Christ did not literally exist. As an expression of the logos, he too, is a part of Gods creation - and by extension, he too, is a part of Gods self-expression.

This is rather assertive. W/O even going into the context, statements as such are made. But as I said, see the later exposition.

How does Private interpreatation count for argument? And why am I finding so little scripture?

Is the Logos of John 1 "He" or "It"?

Another "filler" argument from Ev. Not too long ago, I refuted this argument. Now he brings it back up. Ask yourself; "Why does Ev have to resort to archaic translations to make a point?

A Review of Protestant Bibles Before the KJV:
The Geneva Bible - 1560.
In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made.

See Jn6:39 and Mal4:2. Wheeeeersss Jesus!

Tyndales Bible - 1525.
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God: and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing: that made it.

Tyndales New Testament - 1530.
In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made.

Interestingly enough, Tyndale's translation reverts to the use of "He" and "Him" starting with vs10.

Matthews Bible - 1537.
Used it instead of him" in John 1:3-4.

Then what about 5-13? Dunn says it too should be an "it". So how was this supposed to help you?

Coverdales Bible - 1539 & 1540.
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the begynnynge with God. All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made.

How does "the same" exclude personal reference?

The Great Bible of 1539.
Used it instead of him in John 1:3-4.

The Bishops Bible - 1568.
Used it instead of him in John 1:3-4.

Dito.

There is no justification for seeing the logos as a "he" instead of an "it." The sheer consistency of the OT and NT militates against such a proposal.

Except, perhaps, the context. I suppose the "sheer consistency of the OT and NT militates against.." Rev19:13 as being a titular reference to Christ.

The slightly personifying way in which the word is spoken of as into the world (1:9-14) is typical of the personifying style of the Old Testament references to the word (Isa. 55:11; Psa. 107:20; 147:15. cp. 2 Thess. 3:1.) It cannot be proved that the author of the prologue thought of the word as a real person. Only the historical Jesus and not the original word is said to be the Son (John 1:14, 18.) But in this Son there dwelt and worked the eternal revelation of God.
Wendt, Hans (1907), System der Christlichen Lehre.

Well isn't that rather "sound" reasoning. A quick look at vs12 tells us the 'Word's' "name" which is "Jesus" who is in turn "the Son". See Jn20:31. Wendt evidently has the same problem of selective reading that you suffer from.

Citing opinons from 1907

D) does not impress me nor anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Future Man · Feb 1, 2003

The importance of setting these texts within the historical context of meaning and of recognizing conceptuality in transition is indicated by the correlative recognition that these developments in earliest Christology took place within and as an expression of Jewish-Christian monotheism. In contrast, the too quick resort to the 'obvious' or 'plain' meaning actually becomes in some cases a resort to a form of bitheism or tritheism.
Dunn, James D. G. (1989), Christology in the Making (2nd edition), foreword.

Wow! What a foolish statment! See James White's and Robert Hommel's articles on this as cited elsewhere below.

What is Meant by The Word was God"?

This is rather curious. Here Evangelion attempts to go into the Greek. A field he is ill equipped to dabble in.

If John says that the logos was...

pros ton theos

...meaning that the logos was with God (by which he confirms that the logos was not literally the person of God, Who in this passage is obviously the Father) and then goes on to say that...

Rather, not literally the person of the Father. If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that the Father being called "God" does not exclude the deity of the Son. It's as if you forgot what you were talking about in mid-sentence

theos en ton logos

...the logos was divine, we cannot interpret theos en ton logos as a literal reference to God Himself without presenting Christianity with (a) two separate Gods, or (B) Modalism (an ancient heresy which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person.) We must therefore understand that theos en ton logos is a purely qualitative statement - it refers to the fact that the logos (being the reason, purpose and plan of God) was divine.

Ugh! This is such a horrid assertion. James White's article points out that the grammatical rendering of this verse wholly *refutes modalism*! Ev doesn't even look into this!

Even Trinitarians will agree with the fact that the logos was divine is a proper translation of the text, because they read John 1:1 as In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God the Son, and God the Son was with God the Father. So we are perfectly justified in reading theos en ton logos as the logos was divine.

Not necessarily as there is a nuanced understanding to the two. If John had merely meant "divine" then he would have used the Greek word for such which is theios. He did not.

See Robert Hommel's article below.

This form of language is by no means unique to the classical world. Even today, we speak of a religious ethic or A godly man or a divine ideal or the divine hierarchy (as in the case of I Corinthians 11:1-3.) In the same way, we make mention of secular philosophy, contemporary thought, atheistic reasoning, "a nihilistic concept, or the antiquarian mind. These are qualitative statements; they refer to the source and disposition of abstract ideas - not to literal entities.

Are you seriously trying to equivocate our modern use of a "godly man" with one who is literally "deity?". This is precisely why JWs *must* take the alt rendering of 'a [literal] god' instead of one who is simply "called god". In other words, one who is literally a divine being.

I ask again why theos was used instead of theios?

With this understood, we can now see that the Original New Testament (published 1985) gives a clear reading of the passage in question, without resorting to theological bias:

In the Beginning was the Word.
And the Word was with God.
So the Word was divine.
It was in the Beginning with God.
By it everything had being.
And without it nothing had being ...

Parse those English translations!

In his own New Testament translation, William Barclay (a former professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University) makes the following note:

Logos has two meanings, which no one English word can express. Logos means word, and Logos means mind. A word is the expression of thought. Therefore Jesus is the expression of the thought of God. Or to take the other meaning, in Jesus we see the mind of God.

And we are to disagree with this?

[...]

Hmm.. Very WTS of you, Ev

In Jesus the mind of God becomes a person.

Again, in his Gospel of John, Barclay writes:

In Greek logos means two things: it means 'word' and it means 'reason.'

[...]

The Logos of God, the mind of God, is responsible for the majestic order of the world

[....]

He (John) said to the Greeks, "All your lives you have been fascinated by this great, guiding, controlling mind of God. The mind of God has come to earth in the man Jesus. Look at him and you will see what the mind and thought of God are like.

[...]

By calling Jesus the logos, John said two things about Jesus:

(a) Jesus is the creating power of God come to men. He does not only speak the word of knowledge; he is the word of power. He did not come so much to say things to us, as to do things for us.

(b) Jesus is the incarnate mind of God. We might well translate John's words, 'The mind of God became a man'. A word is always 'the expression of a thought' and Jesus is the perfect expression of God's thoughts for men.

This is rather strange, as I am gathering a wholly different conclusion from Barclay's statements than Ev intends to give across. In fact many are even agreeable. Especially note what he did *not* highlight in the above. This is more than likely attributed to the fact that Ev is *misrepresenting* Barclay's understanding as the JWs have done before him. Read:

Letter written by William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker of Biola College after Shoemaker informed Barclay how the Watchtower had misquoted him:

Dear Professor Donald Shoemaker,

Thank you for your letter of August 11th. The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves.

If they missed from their answer the translation of Kenneth Wuest and the N.E.B., they missed the whole point.
It was good of you to write and I don't think I need say anything more to make my position clear.

With every good wish.

Yours Sincerely

William Barclay.

[Letter written by William Barclay to Donald Shoemaker of Biola College after Shoemaker informed Barclay how the Watchtower had misquoted him, 26 August, 1977]

You can read this letter and how the WTS misquoted him @

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Barclay.htm

Future Man · Feb 1, 2003

A Paraphrase of John 1:1-18

In the beginning, there was a pattern for everything.
The pattern was Gods; the pattern was divine.
The pattern was Gods from the beginning.

Everything that exists, came from that pattern. There is nothing that exists now, which did not first exist in the mind of God.
The pattern is both the source of new life and the meaning of life.
It is a way of being alive in opposition to death, and death cannot overcome it.

God sent a man named John to tell people about the possibilities of this way of being alive so that everybody would trust the agent of God, through whom this new life would come.
John was not this agent, but he taught people how to recognise the one who was.
The agent of new life was coming into the world.

To some people, however, this new life is unrecognisable.
Some who could be expected to see the possibilities of this way of being alive, select death instead.
Others embrace life. They trust what God has to offer.
God made this offer to His entire creation. Its source is heavenly, not earthly.

God is not only the source, but also the meaning of life itself.
Gods divine pattern was embodied in a man who lived among us.
No man has seen God literally - but they have seen His only-begotten Son Jesus - the agent of new life, and the representative of God.

There is no argument for the deity of Christ here. Indeed, such a concept would serve no purpose in the context of John's prologue.

Rather, "..no argument for the deity of Christ in this English paraphrase I have presented"

. One which doesn't even closely resemble the original text or any other English version for that matter. Who made that up, you? What is interesting is that verses 10 and 12 aren't even alluded to.

Hey, but while we're at it let me cite:

Phi 2:5-7 Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Although he was in the form
of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. Instead, he
emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans,
by having a human appearance.

John 1:1-14 - a Closer Examination of the Text (Part I)

God Speaks, and His Will is Performed - the Basic Message of John's Prologue

John 1:1-3 is known amongst Christians as the battleground of the Trinity - and it is not hard to see why. At first glance, this passage may appear to show irrefutable evidence for the deity and pre-existence of Christ. But a careful analysis will show that the entire Trinitarian case turns upon a spurious translation of John 1:1-3, by means of which the Greek word logos is subjected to the most astonishing abuse.

And of course Ev, the Greek grammarian, is the one who's authority this statement rests on. He and a handfull of ATs.

As with any other proof text, the most effective way to refute the Trinitarian claim is to build up a counter-argument on the basis of first principles, in addition to the socio-historical context of Johns Gospel. But before we do anything else, we must establish that the logos is not a person, but rather the outworking of God's purpose and plan. This is even clearer when we read the Genesis record, in which:

God said and it was so.

This is interesting as TRINITARIANS BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD!

Even an Arian could say:

Exodus 3:14. Angel appeared. God said.

Even a cursory glance at Scripture is enough to show that the Old Testament creation account never uses the language that Trinitarianism requires. Not once does Genesis attempt to persuade us that this spoken word was a divine person. Not once is this spoken word referred to as a distinct entity. It is always described as the word of God - never as God Himself.

Actually Ev is misrepresenting things here. Even a Gen1:26 "Let US make (plural) man in OUR image.." entails a multipersonal act of creation (and I rarely even argue that view! JWs could see that in reference to the 'Word' i.e. their view, Michael!). See Prov8:30 where 'Wisdom' is said to be a "workman at YHWH's side". The 'Word' is said to be WITH God. Jesus says himself that he was WITH God in the beginning (Jn17:5). In fact, every creation passage in the NT incorporates the use of 'dia' or 'the means through which God created." Ev must take all of this out of context, out of harmonization in order to fit his view.

Thus, in the words of Psalm 33:6 & 9...

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth... For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

See also Psalm 107:20; 147:15, 18, 19, Hebrews 11:3 (compare with Jeremiah 10:12, 13:5) and II Peter 3:5,7:

. . . by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water . . . But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Ignoring the fact that the message of the New Testament is necessarily founded upon the old (and therefore cannot contradict it) Trinitarians place great emphasis on the alleged significance of the word logos in the Johannine prologue, which they claim is a direct reference to the pre-existent Christ. The superficial nature of this argument is easily exposed.

This is a rather large oversight by Evangelion. Trintarians believe Jesus to be very God. Therefore a "God said" or a "by the breath of YHWH" in no wise *excludes* Jesus from the scene! Ev has brought in his own presuppositions that *only* the Father is YHWH, and that Jesus is not. He's assuming what he has yet to prove.

Now notice carefully the *bold* (above) and read the following:

Zec 14:3-4 And Jehovah shall go out and fight against those nations, like the day He
fought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of
Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall divide
from its middle, from the east even to the west, a very great valley. And half of the
mountain shall move toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Note carefully the context. It is specifically said to be YHWH's *feet* which are to touch the Mt. of Olives in the last days. No reference to a secondary being is made.

Now compare with:

Act 1:10-12 And as they were intently looking into the heaven, He having gone, even
behold, two men in white clothing stood by them, who also said, Men, Galileans, why
do you stand looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being taken from you into
the heaven, will come in the way you saw Him going into the heaven. Then they
returned to Jerusalem from the mount being called Of Olive Grove, which is near
Jerusalem, a sabbath's journey away.

Here in the above we see that Zech14 is to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. By Ev's *own* line of reasoning, this means that Jesus is YHWH!

Let's read that statement again:

Ignoring the fact that the message of the New Testament is necessarily founded upon the ol (and therefore cannot contradict it)

Your argument is turning out to be a poor waste of time, Ev. I almost feel sorry for what I'm doing.

Future Man · Feb 1, 2003

In the KJV, for example, logos is translated by more than twenty different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., John 17:20) as well as those of God (John 5:38.) The Bible, as we have already seen, informs us that there was no creation without the word; no creation without God speaking and causing it to occur. Nothing occurring without a direct expression of the Divine will.

Creation is also said to be wrought by God's 'Wisdom' (See Prov8:30; Jer10:12..cf..1Cor1:24). As well as his "right hand" etc,. (See my above outline). Jesus is in fact often portrayed in the OT as ontological parts of God (arm, etc,.)... Is Ev's reasoning consistent? As is typical, no.

At some point however, we must address the fact that there are a couple of passages in which Christ is called the logos of God. What do we make of them? What are they telling us, and how might they be explained to our interested friends?

The answer is found in the principle of God manifestation. Christ is the complete manifestation ("revelation") of the logos, for "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9.) This same logos was in the beginning with God, before the existence of Christ. When the "word was made flesh" (John 1:14) then, and only then, did Christ come into existence as the logos made flesh. Christ is called the logos (Revelation 19:13, compare with I John 1:1; Luke 1:2) because he constitutes the outworking of Gods logos; the physical reality of a plan which had previously existed in the mind of God.

For Colossians 2:9 See here:

Colossians 2:9 by Robert Hommel
http://www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col2_9.htm

Ah, Ev's own reading into the meaning 'ginomai'. By Ev's definition of 'ginomai':

The 'logos' is the "plan of God", the 'logos' was "made flesh", therefore the 'logos' is no longer the plan of God, but just mere flesh.

See his fallacy?

Here's the other aspect of his fallacy, which he overlooks. No man is able to live outside the power of the Spirit of God. It is God himself who animates the flesh. If Jesus is God [the logos, spirit] then....how do you cut him out of the picture?

Also...

Just in case Ev equivocates the meaning of "beginning" in Luke 1:2 with that in 1Jn. I may as easily do the same with Gen1. I think it's more than a little selective to ignore the clear parallel between John1:1 and 1John1:1. Would Ev draw a parallel between Luke 1:2 and Jn1? No. What Ev needs to ask is "..from the beginning of 'what'?", and note the essential difference.

Barnes:

1Jo 1:1 -
That which was from the beginning - There can be no doubt that the reference here is to the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Word that was made flesh.

>

Of course a quick look at Eph3:9 tells us the same.

Was there is a pre-existence of that which was and is Jesus Christ? Not in any literal sense whatsoever. A man might say that he existed as "A twinkle in my father's eye and a knowing look on my mother's face", but this is radically different from literal pre-existence.

It's also a false parallel to John, one might point out.

Could we honestly tell our friends that "That which is me, existed before I was conceived"? Not at all.

No. Why? Am I Christ? Am I within the context of John?

Christ came into existence when he was conceived and subsequently begotten. When did this occur? Luke 1:35 tells us that it was some two thousand years ago in Palestine, when the power of God overshadowed Mary, the betrothed of Joseph. (See also Matthew 1:20.) The orthodox Trinitarian Creeds (in which we find various references to the eternally begotten Son of God") stand apart from the witness of Scripture. Their language is peculiar, paradoxical, nonsensical, and above all unBiblical.

What we call an "incarnation" you deem a "refutation". You can't simply tell us your position and simply expect us to take it as an argument. Especially considering that the doctrine of "eternal begetting" has little to do with the incarnation.

Thus:

The notion that the Son was begotten by the Father in eternity past, not as an event, but as an inexplicable relationship, has been accepted and carried along in the Christian theology since the fourth century....

We have examined all the instances in which 'begotten' or 'born' or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about 'begetting' as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. [2]

No problem here. You ought to remember my post on "Son". The one you deleted.

God's Word in the O.T. and N.T., Logos and Dabar

ByKr ChYk

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Well-Known Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Priest of God and the Lamb

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Similar threads