• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Evangelion, Jan 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
  2. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    *yaaawwwwwn*

    You mean like "Idiot" whenever *you* get in a huff? Is that what you're saying? :)

    The following as found here:

    http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Menj/tam1.htm

    <begin>

    Not only does the Angel forgive sins and has the power to destroy Israel’s enemies, but he also embodies within his very own being the Divine nature and character of Yahweh. Dr. Robert A. Morey comments on the significance of the Angel embodying the Divine Name of Yahweh:

    "To the Jews at that time, the name of God was a revelation of His divine nature. As Ellicot correctly pointed out, 'God and His name are almost convertible terms. He is never said to set His Name in a man.'

    Hengstenberg said, 'The name of God can dwell in him only, who is originally of the same nature with God.' Dean Alford comments:

    He is no created angel, but a form of the Divine Presence, bearing the name of Jehovah, a in ch. xiii. 21, and clothed with His attributes, and indeed identified in action (ver. 22) with Him; for it is not said 'he will be an enemy.' &c., but 'I will be,' as equivalent: and (23) the way in which this will be shewn is by his going before thee, and his cutting off the nations.

    "The Divine Name... was 'in' the Messenger in the sense that what God was the Messenger was. Keil explains:

    Jehovah revealed Himself in him; and hence he is called in chap. xxxiii. 15,16, the face of Jehovah, because the essential nature of Jehovah was manifested in him.

    "In the Old Testament, the 'name' of someone revealed his character. For example, the name 'Jacob' meant 'scoundrel' and so he was. Thus, the statement that God's 'name' is in the Messenger can only mean that this Messenger has the character of God..." (Morey, Trinity—Evidence and Issues [Word Publishing; Grand Rapids, MI 1996; ISBN: 0529106922], p. 152; bold emphasis ours)

    <end cite>

    I find it interesting that the Angel here is not merely "coming in the name" of YHWH, but rather has the name of 'YHWH' IN Him. Almost as if God was manifesting himself in this form [Hence the Heb. word 'mal 'ak'].


    God's Wisdom is said to be *God's* Wisdom, but not God. God's *hand* is said to be *God's* hand, but not God. See the fallacy of those who know not what the Trinitarian believes? :rolleyes:

    Ah, you oughta read Bauckham. He correctly notes that none of these "agents' were ever exalted in the way that Jesus Christ was. Only Christ is ever included in the 'divine identity' of God. Including receiveing 'worship' e.g. Pelach/latrueo, Rev5:13 etc, etc,.. Of course this is one of those areas where you would need to "harmonize", so I suggest reading the book itself.

    Or, rather, you just need to learn not to read so much into the text. It's rather obvious that he is merely *quoting* YHWH, not speaking as if he were YHWH himself [simply place quotations around the approprate text and it all comes clear]. What Moses (or any angel, Archangel, prophet, or otherwise) does *not* do is- In speaking of the 'Angel of the Lord':

    "During the last watch of the night the Lord looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. He made the wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, ‘Let's get away from the Israelites! The Lord is fighting for them against Egypt.’ Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen.’" Exodus 14:24-26

    So "namebearing" is necessary for physical movements as well? :D And what I find interesting is that although I agree in full with the following statement:

    When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person.


    ..it has nothing to do with making statments as if made by the person sent [e.g. "YHWH said..."]. In fact what is quite odd to me is why *Jesus Himself* does not enact the extremety of "namebearing" that you have applied to Moses! Why are we not discovering numerous instances where Jesus makes statements such as "YHWH looked on the crowd..." or "YHWH said,..." in the NT when He is the *very epitome* of all who could possibly represent the Father?

    Now to proceed to a highlight of your own "bite myself with my own argument" wonders:

    Gen1:2 "God said..."

    When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person.

    John1:1

    When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person.

    Gen1:2 "God said..."

    When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person.

    John1:1

    When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person.

    Gen1:2 "God said..."

    Are we seeing a pattern in the above? You proceed to present your own tangent argument and merely re-assert what I have *already stated* in my *very argument* you ignored [Next post] :D


    Note: Censored words need not be repeated, even if it's just to make a point. Refrain from using them in the future. Thank you.
     
  3. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    8<

     
  4. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Also as far as "equality with God" goes. Read:

    Joh 5:23 That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him. [See Rev5:13]

    Tie this in with:

    Isa 42:8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory [LXX-'doxa'] will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.

    ..cf..

    Isa 43:6-7 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back; bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the end of the earth; every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created FOR my glory [LXX-'doxa'], whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.

    ..cf..

    Col 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: ALL things were created by ['dia'] Him, and FOR Him:

    ..cf..

    Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth , and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, [THE] Blessing, and [THE] Honor <5092>, and [THE] [Gk-'doxa'], and Power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne AND UNTO the Lamb forever and ever.

    Robertson's Word Pictures:

    Rev 5:13 -

    Every created thing (pa¯n ktisma). Every creature in a still wider antiphonal circle beyond the circle of angels (from ktizo¯, for which see 1Ti_4:4; Jam_1:18), from all the four great fields of life (in heaven, upon the earth, under the earth as in Rev_5:3, with on the sea epi te¯s thalasse¯s added). No created thing is left out. This universal chorus of praise to Christ from all created life reminds one of the profound mystical passage in Rom_8:20-22 concerning the sympathetic agony of creation (ktisis) in hope of freedom from the bondage of corruption. If the trail of the serpent is on all creation, it will be ultimately thrown off.
    Saying (legontas). Masculine (construction according to sense, personifying the created things) if genuine, though some MSS. have legonta (grammatical gender agreeing with panta) present active participle of lego¯, to say.
    And to the Lamb (kai to¯i arnio¯i). Dative case. Praise and worship are rendered to the Lamb precisely as to God on the throne. Note separate articles here in the doxology as in Rev_4:11 and the addition of to kratos (active power) in place of ischus (reserve of strength) in Rev_5:12.

    So here in the above we see the very creation which was created specifically FOR God's glory [which He will not give to another] being demonstrated as being created FOR the Son [even if you assert it is only the "new creation" it still works :D] and in turn giving Him THE *exact* Glory that is due the Father. In other words, the glory that *can only* belong to God.

    That's a statment of equality if I've ever seen one :rolleyes:.


    Was Matt28:19 used (just out of curiosity)? Because it's essentially the same thing as John5:7 and, quite frankly, a much stronger verse :). It's also got "in the name of" FYI, a phrase only used of personal beings in the NT. :D

    Please..please say "...in the name of the Law!" :D


    You're hacking away at a rather large strawman here. The "Word" was not used as a substitution for "Father", *specifically* (that's your own presuppostions coming into play) but rather 'God' or more specifically, 'YHWH'.

    And here's the interesting aspect of your above statement. Read:

    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)

    Now this is interesting. Within the context of Exodus (as I pointed out in my argument), it is the 'Messenger of YHWH' who is doing the speaking, ie. a being "distinct from the Father" as you would assert. See also:

    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)

    I *distincly* remember you back at TOL, providing us with your view that this was a cooperative action between YHWH and the Metatron. If TOL has not wiped it, I'll see if I can provide a URL. Now in light of this read the following:

    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)

    That is, a being "distinct from the Father". Now let's make a jump to such an example that brings to mind John1 in our New Testament:

    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)

    Again, one "revealed" by God to the world in order to create it. Ergo, a being "distince from the Father".

    Cf..John1:1-4

    See above. They attributed "Word" to that which was clearly "distinct from the Father" on numerous occasions. A personal being in fact [i.e.. The Angel of the Lord].

    Whoa, earlier you asserted that it was merely a way of expressing God's "influence, power, etc,." or something along those lines. Now you only serve to agree with us! If the 'Memra' is interchangeable with the 'Tetra' then this only serves to demonstrate the Jewish thought John the Apostle carried over into the NT to express the divinity of the Son, hence "...the Word [logos] was God [theos]."
     
  5. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist


    Hahah! But what excludes this form of use in John1 other than your personal bias? If you say "context" expect to go into it.


    *ahem*..Like doing one of your infamous Google searches on 'latrueo', finding something that vaguely might agree with you, proceeding to cite it as the work of a "scholar", only to realize that the guy is "self-taught in Greek" and considers the Koine Greek language to be "pagan" :)


    And I myself as an eyewitness know that OS used nothing more that "***". You certainly have little room to talk, Mr. "This isn't a swear word in Australia!" :rolleyes:

    I'm just seeing repeats. No evidence, no address of the context. Nothing.

    Ah, then according to the context of John, Christians are essentially "heretics." You're still trying to equivocate the "fuzzy ethereal mist 'Word'" with it's use in scripture. Read and realize:

    Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    The above use is likened unto how it is used below:

    1Jo 1:1 That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life

    ..cf..

    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)

    ..cf..

    Rev 19:13 And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God.


    Nope. Not Greek Philosophy, but as it is consistently used in our very own Scriptures. You need to put aside the 'strawmen' and address (for once) the very context which refutes your tortured view.


    It doesn't matter what "they saw" it matters what the text states. You're merely employing your typical argument from silence. I've already demonstrated quite simply how the prophets often times knew nothing concerning the details of what they themselves were writing down on paper!


    Irrelevant argument from silence. I in turn ask how the first-time readers of John's gospel would know that the second occurence of 'kosmos' in vs 10 of the first chapter is in actuallity the "new world to come" when they don't even know that a "new world" is coming at that point in time. :D Considering your flip-flop in position in that the verses1-13 in their entirety only concern the "literal dabar", this only serves to make things more confusing!

    I know how you'll answer this, and it's going to bite you back so hard, I'll literally laugh out loud when it comes. :)

    The whole point is that the Apostle John, on three occasions, *does*. In fact is is always a being "distinct from the Father". This asserts his preexistence. It is from there (as has always been my argument) that his deity is confirmed.

    LOL!, Ev the Greek grammarian strikes again! What Ev needs to tell us is why even anti-Trintarian scholars [or even debators such as Greg Stafford] do not make this horrid misrepresentation of the Greek. Also what Ev doesn't realize, is that if the 'Word' here represents the "plan of God" then by his own reasoning the 'Word' in vs14 is no longer the "plan of God' *in any sense*, but merely a lump of "flesh". The 'ginomai' here is in reference to the contrast between "just" and "no longer *just*" in regards to the Spiritual logos. Ev can't even read right.

    Haha! And let's not forget:

    ¶.Genesis 28:20-21…And 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)

    ¶.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)

    ¶.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)

    ¶.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) [Notice that the Tetra does not appear in Gen1:27. See Gen1:26 "us".]

    ¶.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)

    ¶.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)

    I think that we can clearly see that the 'Word of YHWH' is not *just* a substitution for the Tetra [which is precisely what we would want!], nor is it *just* a way of expressing His power. Either of the former support us just fine as it is. :) Remember Ev, the Jews believed the Law to be eternal. John ascribing such to Jesus only serves to demonstrate how they viewed Jesus. Dito on 'Wisdom'.

    Ah, *another* argument from silence. This common principle can apply to *anything*.
     
  6. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Hold up there, bucko. Many of those "clear divinely inspired revelations" AREN'T EVEN INITIALLY FULFILLED IN JESUS CHRIST!! When the prophets spoke these words, they had the original application in mind.

    Scripture seems to teach it quite emphatically to me. The revelation certainly *is* there (try doing some reading for a change). You're just spiritually blind and unregenerate.

    I got a similar answer after punching it through his head for several thread pages back at his own forum. Coincidentally I was banned...Hmmmm...:)

    Trying to sidestep, eh? Reminds me of my John20:28 challenge to you on CWS. :rolleyes:

    :D

    Ben-

    I addressed this very passage a few thread pages back. I'll reiterate the argument next post. I need him to address it for refinition purposes anyway. ;)

    Ah, so "ONLY" doesn't actually mean "ONLY", eh? What Ev lists in the above are "temporal saviors" as opposed to "THE eternal Savior "...to the ends of the earth"". Always remember that Jesus laid his life down "..of His own accord". This in turn forces the Father to be *reliant* on the Son to MAKE Him "Savior". ;)

    God bless--FM
     
  7. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Being that this went ignored, I'll just have to pull a David Burke and post it again :) Just a little scripture and context, that's all:

    >



    John Chapter 1 and the Christadelphians

    Probably the most debated verse in support of the deity of Christ is John1:1 which is thus;

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

    Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses [JW], the Christadelphians [CD] do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and in turn do not believe that the 'Word' in John1 is the person of Jesus, but the literal spoken word of the Father..e.g...Gen1:2 etc. They attempt to support this with the literal creation accounts in addition to various occurences of the literal 'dabar' [word] in the OT.

    It is important to note that the prime focus is not on the rendering of the second occurence of "God" [theos] in vs1, as is the primary focus when concerning Arians. Rather, we will set our attention on the surrounding context in addition to scriptural harmonization in order to demonstrate the role of Jesus as the 'Word of God' in the Johanne prolouge.

    There are several objections against the Trintarian (and even Arian to a degree) view of John1.

    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' [Word] 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 it is being used in passages such as Rev19:13?

    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 His 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, Eph3:9.

    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
     
  8. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    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 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..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 and the OT in it's entirely 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". They can't do it.

    See also this article on the Memra

    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.
     
  9. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    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, (Jn5:26, Jn5:39, 1Jn5:11), and that life was the light of men (Jn3:36…I’ve provided many scriptures demonstrating Jesus as the “Light”). The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (..cf..Jn3:19; Heb1:2).
    “There came a man who was sent from God (Isaiah40:3..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 husband’s 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 John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s 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.

    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.

    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. The 'Word' in John1 that had the "Life" IN Him is the said to be Jesus, who has the Life IN him.
     
  10. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Jaltus made an excellent observation, which I will cite here:

    >

    Let me show you what I mean:

    A 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 He was with God in the beginning.

    B 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    C 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
    5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

    D 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
    7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.


    E 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
    9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.


    F 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
    11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.


    X (center) 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--


    F' 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

    E' 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    D' 15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'"

    C' 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

    B' 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

    A' 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.


    Obviously, you can see the correlation between John not being the light since Christ is the light (D, vv. 6-7) and Jesus coming into the world as flesh (D', vs. 14). The light made its dwelling in flesh, which means God instantiated Himself in the flesh (for God is the light, I John 1:5), which is who Jesus is.
     
  11. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    :D

    Don't you mean...

    "The context is irrelevant :cry: , it's Pagan!"


    :D
     
  12. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Hello?

    Straw man, as previously noted in an earlier post.

    Rather than get bogged down with another round of irrelevant objections, I'll let Marian Hillar (who references his sources quite nicely) answer that one:

    • Philo's biblical tradition in which one could not name or describe God was the major factor in accepting the Greek Platonic concepts and emphasis on God's transcendence. But this position is rather alien to biblical and rabbinical understanding. In the Bible, God is represented in a "material" and "physical" way.

      Philosophically, however, Philo differentiated between the existence of God, which could be demonstrated, and the nature of God which humans are not able to cognize. God's essence is beyond any human experience or cognition, therefore it can be described only by stating what God is not (via negativa) or by depriving him of any attribute of sensible objects and putting God beyond any attribute applicable to a sensible world (via eminentiae) because God alone is a being whose existence is his essence (Det. 160).

      Philo states in many places that God's essence is one and single, that he does not belong to any class or that there is in God any distinction of genus and species. Therefore, we cannot say anything about his qualities "For God is not only devoid of peculiar qualities, but he is likewise not of the form of man" (LA 1.36); he "is free from distinctive qualities" (LA 1.51; 3.36; Deus 55).

      Strictly speaking, we cannot make any positive or negative statements about God: "Who can venture to affirm that ... he is a body, or that he is incorporeal, or that he has such and such distinctive qualities, or that he has no such qualities? ... But he alone can utter a positive assertion respecting himself, since he alone has an accurate knowledge of his own nature" (LA 3.206).

      Moreover, since the essence of God is single, therefore its property must be one which Philo denotes as acting "Now it is an especial attribute of God to create, and this faculty it is impious to ascribe to any created being" (Cher. 77). The expression of this act of God, which is at the same time his thinking, is his Logos (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283).

      Though God is hidden, his reality is made manifest by the Logos that is God's image (Somn. 1.239; Conf. 147-148) and by the sensible universe, which in turn is the image of the Logos, that is "the archetypal model, the idea of ideas" (Op. 25). Because of this we can perceive God's existence, though we cannot fathom his essence.

      But there are degrees and levels to our cognizance of God. Those at the summit and the highest level may grasp the unity of the powers of God, at the lower level people recognize the Logos as the Regent Power, and those still at the lowest level, immersed in the sensible world are unable to perceive the intelligible reality (Fug. 94; Abr. 124-125).

      Steps in mystic experience involve a realization of human nothingness, a realization that the one who acts is God alone, and abandonment of our sense of perception (Her. 69-71; Plant. 64; Conf. 95; Ebr. 152). A mystic state will produce a sensation of tranquility, and stability; it appears suddenly and is described as a sober intoxication (Gig. 49; Sacr. 78; Somn. 1.71; Op. 70-71).

      Taken from Hillar's brief research paper, Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.) (2001.)
    As you can see, the references are abbreviated.

    A key now follows:

    • Abr. De Abrahamo;
      Aet. De Aeternitate Mundi;
      Agr. De Agricultura;
      Anim. De Animalibus;
      Cher. De Cherubim;
      Conf. De Confusione Linguarum;
      Congr. De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia;
      Cont. De Vita Contemplativa;
      Decal. De Decalogo;
      Det. Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat;
      Deus. Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis;
      Ebr. De Ebrietate;
      Flac. In Flaccum;
      Fug. De Fuga et Inventione;
      Gig. De Gigantibus;
      Her. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit;
      Hypoth. Hypothetica;
      Jos. De Josepho;
      LA Legum Allegoriarum;
      Legat. Legatio ad Gaium;
      Mig. De Migratione Abrahami;
      Mut. De Mutatione Nominum;
      Op. De Opificio Mundi;
      Plant. De Plantatione;
      Post. De Posteritate Caini;
      Praem. De Praemiis et Poenis;
      Prob. Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit;
      Prov. De Providentia;
      QE Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum;
      QG Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim;
      Sacr. De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini;
      Sobr. De Sobrietate;
      Somn. De Somniis;
      Spec. leg. De Specialibus Legibus;
      Virt. De Virtutibus.
    For further reading, see Vitalij Ivanovich Petrenko's Master of Theology thesis: Theology of Icons: A Protestant perspective (1996.)

    Any further complaints about Philo will be ignored. :D

    *snip*

    False. I cited (and referenced!) Geisler, as I have demonstrated repeatedly. I also referred you to Hillar, giving you the title of his essay on this subject.

    Why do you persist in making claims that are so easy to refute?

     
  13. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Again - for any Trinitarian who wishes to answer:

    • How many disciples did Jesus baptise?
    :cool:
     
  14. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    No it is NOT a straw man, it is an evasion by you. You keep repeating that I should study Philo so I can read your mind and know what Philo sources you may be quoting so you don't have to properly document your posts. IF I had joined a discussion, which I did NOT, on Philo, then I would be expected to have some knowledge about Philo. Once again, the reader should not have to go look up your sources or know the complete history of everyone you refer to. Quote what you quote and properly cite it. Is that too hard for you?
     
  15. Dee Dee Warren

    Dee Dee Warren Regular Member

    108
    +1
    Christian
    US-Republican

    Boy someone is grumpy..... though we are not smoochey, the last time we spoke it wasn't on any worse terms then you generally have with most people.&nbsp;&nbsp; :cool:
     
  16. Dee Dee Warren

    Dee Dee Warren Regular Member

    108
    +1
    Christian
    US-Republican
    &nbsp;

    LOLOLOLOL - Stop it!!&nbsp; You're killing me!!
     
  17. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Notice those letters and numbers in parentheses following the names, those are called sources. I'm sure if you had studied Theology you would know what the abbreviations mean. Perhaps you should study the subject you are discussing here. Now, what you have to do is PROVE that the sources above are wrong or misquoted, etc. For example, does Fulgentius quote 1 John 5:7 in MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373?
    Irrelevant and irrelevant. Have you proven the above citations wrong, yet, before blowing out your smoke screen? An argument from silence only proves silence. Can you do REAL research or only ask asinine question?
     
  18. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Irrelevant who you claim you got it from. The fact that I can prove is you made an accusation against me on this forum, which you cannot back up. An accusation which is a vicious lie.
    Get your story straight. Was a it one person or was it people who told you?

    How could I be banned for a lie? You claim I posted profanity, the person who reported me said I posted profanity BUT you cannot back it up. OTOH I can prove exactly what I posted and it was NOT profanity.
     
  19. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    I will let you address these quotes yourself.
     
  20. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others

    I will also let you respond to Dunn yourself.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...