1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 God, not 3 Gods?

[withwonderingawe]

The concept of the Logos has a rich history in Hellenistic thinking, and it is out from that large history of language that John is pulling from. The marvelous thing here is that the Logos, the power that commands and coheres all things, being both with God and is God, became a human person.

No, I have looked through every single passage where John uses the word logos and never does he use it in that pagan Hellenistic way. He uses it as meaning 'the reason for' and none of the rest of the writers even come close to using in a Hellenistic way.

Luke uses the word gospel when speaking of the logos/reason of God.
Luke 4:18
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;

The Gospel is the word of God, it is the message of the atonement.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word/logo, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 14
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words/logos: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings/logos: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

His intent is this good news, the plan of salvation, the message of how we are save. Jesus was the lamb foreordained before the foundation of the world. Now I don't mean to say by using the word logos he didn't mean Jesus the man but that Jesus as the Messiah the Savior of the World was God's message.

In the beginning was the Word of God, the message of the atonement found in Jesus Christ.
and the Word was with God, Jesus/Yahweh was with the Father
and the Word/Jesus was God/Yahweh

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, I have looked through every single passage where John uses the word logos and never does he use it in that pagan Hellenistic way. He uses it as meaning 'the reason for' and none of the rest of the writers even come close to using in a Hellenistic way

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God, this one was in the beginning with God and all things were made through this one, and nothing that was made was made without this one." "And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us."

Here the Logos is intended as more than just a generic term for reason, writing, and the like; here John is talking about the cosmic Logos.

Luke uses the word gospel when speaking of the logos/reason of God.
Luke 4:18
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;

The Gospel is the word of God, it is the message of the atonement.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word/logo, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 14
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words/logos: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings/logos: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

His intent is this good news, the plan of salvation, the message of how we are save. Jesus was the lamb foreordained before the foundation of the world. Now I don't mean to say by using the word logos he didn't mean Jesus the man but that Jesus as the Messiah the Savior of the World was God's message

None of which is relevant to the use of Logos in John's prologue.

In the beginning was the Word of God, the message of the atonement found in Jesus Christ.
and the Word was with God, Jesus/Yahweh was with the Father
and the Word/Jesus was God/Yahweh

Then we're at an impasse. If you don't even accept that Jesus is the Incarnate Logos, in spite of what is written in John's prologue concerning the Logos being God and the Logos becoming flesh, then I don't know how to carry on this particular line of dialogue.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[withwonderingawe]

Here the Logos is intended as more than just a generic term for reason, writing, and the like; here John is talking about the cosmic Logos.

Only if John were a pagan, he wasn't!

If Jesus had called himself the logos, if one other apostle had used the word in the same terms then you could make the claim but the christian world has built it's whole doctrine of the Trinity on that one little line and that is not the way to build sound doctrine.

In 1John 1 he makes it clear what he means by using the Greek word logos

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/logos of life;

He is the message of life, the reason for life, the gospel

 

[Peter1000]

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?" - John 14:10

The doctrine of the Perichoresis is about the intercommunion of the three Hypostases; it is the interior relationship(s) of the Holy Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran

Every time you use a scripture like John 14:10, you must be reminded of John 17:21.
So here it is:
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John witnesses that all those that believe can be 1, even as the Father and the Son are 1 and they can be 1 in us. That is the key, that they can be 1 in us.

So if the doctrine of the Perichoresis is about the intercommunion of the 3 Hypostases; and is the interior relationship of the Holy Trinity, then the doctrine of the Perichoresis has to also be about the intercommunion of the (3 Hypostases + the billions of Hypostases of those that believe in Christ), and is the interior relationship of the Holy Billions.

If you are sticking to your theory in John 14:10, you must extend your theory for John 17:21. Same verbiage, same results.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Only if John were a pagan, he wasn't!

Why would the Fourth Evangelist need to be a pagan to utilize the concept of the Logos from the Greek philosophical tradition?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Every time you use a scripture like John 14:10, you must be reminded of John 17:21.
So here it is:
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John witnesses that all those that believe can be 1, even as the Father and the Son are 1 and they can be 1 in us. That is the key, that they can be 1 in us.

So if the doctrine of the Perichoresis is about the intercommunion of the 3 Hypostases; and is the interior relationship of the Holy Trinity, then the doctrine of the Perichoresis has to also be about the intercommunion of the (3 Hypostases + the billions of Hypostases of those that believe in Christ), and is the interior relationship of the Holy Billions.

If you are sticking to your theory in John 14:10, you must extend your theory for John 17:21. Same verbiage, same results.

And I think that there is something to be understood about the relationship of the Church as a reflection of the Trinitarian life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

And I think that there is something to be understood about the relationship of the Church as a reflection of the Trinitarian life.

-CryptoLutheran

According to John 17:21 the Church is not a reflection of the Trinitarian life, it is that the Chruch is part of the Trinity. "That they all may be one in Us". If we are one with the Trinity, we are part of the Trinity.

The solution to this physical Mega-Trinity problem, is to know that the 3 members of the Godhead are so united in Their purpose, They are truly 1 God. We too can be so united with Them in Their purpose, that we can be 1 with Them.

It is not a physical oneness, it is a united purpose oneness. "That they all may be one in Us". That is our goal, that is the goal of the Godhead.

 

[Peter1000]

Why would the Fourth Evangelist need to be a pagan to utilize the concept of the Logos from the Greek philosophical tradition?

-CryptoLutheran

Because John, who was a Jew, steeped in the Jewish tradition, would probably have rather despised Greek philosophy, having a pagan/mystical historical tradition.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Because John, who was a Jew, steeped in the Jewish tradition, would probably have rather despised Greek philosophy, having a pagan/mystical historical tradition.

Amen

 

[ViaCrucis]

According to John 17:21 the Church is not a reflection of the Trinitarian life, it is that the Chruch is part of the Trinity. "That they all may be one in Us". If we are one with the Trinity, we are part of the Trinity.

The solution to this physical Mega-Trinity problem, is to know that the 3 members of the Godhead are so united in Their purpose, They are truly 1 God. We too can be so united with Them in Their purpose, that we can be 1 with Them.

It is not a physical oneness, it is a united purpose oneness. "That they all may be one in Us". That is our goal, that is the goal of the Godhead.

"That they may be one, even as we are one" Is Christ's prayer. Christ's prayer is about the unity of the Church, and the unity of the Church in and with God; and so the Church reflects and shares in the Trinitarian life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Because John, who was a Jew, steeped in the Jewish tradition, would probably have rather despised Greek philosophy, having a pagan/mystical historical tradition.

That didn't stop Paul from appealing to Greek philosophers and poets to make certain points in Acts 17.

If you want to assume that the Fourth Evangelist was unwilling or incapable of utilizing the long tradition of Greek thought in which his audience and readership would have been familiar, you are certainly able to do so--I don't make that assumption because it seems clear that John had no trouble doing so as he does it here. Nor is this unique, the meeting place of the Jewish and Hellenistic traditions were common in the 1st century, a prime example of this would be Philo of Alexandria.

Ignoring the Greco-Roman world and context of early Christianity is just as bad as ignoring the Jewish world and context of early Christianity; Christianity arose in a massively cosmopolitan society.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

That didn't stop Paul from appealing to Greek philosophers and poets to make certain points in Acts 17.

If you want to assume that the Fourth Evangelist was unwilling or incapable of utilizing the long tradition of Greek thought in which his audience and readership would have been familiar, you are certainly able to do so--I don't make that assumption because it seems clear that John had no trouble doing so as he does it here. Nor is this unique, the meeting place of the Jewish and Hellenistic traditions were common in the 1st century, a prime example of this would be Philo of Alexandria.

Ignoring the Greco-Roman world and context of early Christianity is just as bad as ignoring the Jewish world and context of early Christianity; Christianity arose in a massively cosmopolitan society.

-CryptoLutheran

I really like the way you write. Although I have to read it a few times I really begin to understand similarities and differences between our belief systems. Thank you again.

 

[Peter1000]

"That they may be one, even as we are one" Is Christ's prayer. Christ's prayer is about the unity of the Church, and the unity of the Church in and with God; and so the Church reflects and shares in the Trinitarian life.

-CryptoLutheran

Then in the same way that you just described Christ's prayer was about the unity of the church and the unity of the church in and with God, so is Jesus in exactly the same way, is in unity in and with God.

IOW the same way the church is related to God and Jesus, is the same way Jesus is related to God, and it is not 3 in 1 relationship. The reason I know that is because the church does not have billion in 1 relationship.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Then in the same way that you just described Christ's prayer was about the unity of the church and the unity of the church in and with God, so is Jesus in exactly the same way, is in unity in and with God.

IOW the same way the church is related to God and Jesus, is the same way Jesus is related to God, and it is not 3 in 1 relationship. The reason I know that is because the church does not have billion in 1 relationship.

That makes sense. A billion sinners thrown together that do not have a billion in one relationship. I'm shocked!

The UNITY is in Christ. So let's restate that, a billion of sinner's that are One in that they are saved by and indwelled with the Holy Spirit. Now that's the church.

What is Mormonism then?

 

[fatboys]

That makes sense. A billion sinners thrown together that do not have a billion in one relationship. I'm shocked!

The UNITY is in Christ. So let's restate that, a billion of sinner's that are One in that they are saved by and indwelled with the Holy Spirit. Now that's the church.

What is Mormonism then?

The true way

 

[ToBeLoved]

His intent is this good news, the plan of salvation, the message of how we are save. Jesus was the lamb foreordained before the foundation of the world. Now I don't mean to say by using the word logos he didn't mean Jesus the man but that Jesus as the Messiah the Savior of the World was God's message.

In the beginning was the Word of God, the message of the atonement found in Jesus Christ.
and the Word was with God, Jesus/Yahweh was with the Father
and the Word/Jesus was God/Yahweh

First of all, God is Omniscient. That means that God knows all things, past, present and future at the same time. God is not held to time as it is on earth. There is not time as we see it.

So that Jesus was foreordained as the Savior before the foundation of the world, in God's time is that there is no time as we see it. So that proves nothing.

When the word Logos is used, it is referring as the Son of God, not Jesus. It is not referring to the Messiah of the world a the meaning of Logos. The Son of God became the Messiah for us, but God is who He is.

Now what I also found interesting is that the same verse that you used as your proof text shows your lack of understanding. Because the Logos cannot be only the Messiah. He is the Messiah and that is PART of who He is, but notice it says that "the Word is God". So your Messiah only theory of the Word/Logos is flawed.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The true way

Says the religion that is .0007 percent of earth's population. God would have raised Mormonism up like He did Christianity, to BILLIONS if it was the true way. God is not on Mormonism's side. The facts prove that God is in Christianity, that is the religion that God has prospered, not Mormonism.

God could have propelled Mormonism, but He didn't. True dat.

 

[fatboys]

Says the religion that is .0007 percent of earth's population. God would have raised Mormonism up like He did Christianity, to BILLIONS if it was the true way. God is not on Mormonism's side. The facts prove that God is in Christianity, that is the religion that God has prospered, not Mormonism.

God could have propelled Mormonism, but He didn't. True dat.

President got elected because more people voted for him. How is the number watching on this worked out? Just because more people believe in something doesn't make it true.

 

[ToBeLoved]

President got elected because more people voted for him. How is the number watching on this worked out? Just because more people believe in something doesn't make it true.

Your mind is a curious thing. How God has anything to do with a president being elected could only make sense to you I think.

I have a secret for you. There will always be someone who will be president. Shhh. It's a secret.

 

[fatboys]

Your mind is a curious thing. How God has anything to do with a president being elected could only make sense to you I think.

I have a secret for you. There will always be someone who will be president. Shhh. It's a secret.

I'm going to try and lower my intellect do I can talk to the little people. Having more people doesn't mean anything except it has bee around longer.