Jesus and the Trinity

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

First you don't know what you are talking about. You did NOT say "satan" you said judges and angels. And "Satan" is never specifically called "theos." in the N.T.. "

Satan is a Cherub(an angel), more to the point he's a creation. In 2 Cor. 4:4 ,"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." "The god of this age" certainly represents Satan. To deny it is to be blinded. Even the trinitarian NIV agrees, because it's obvious, and furnishes the following footnote, " god of this age -- The devil, who is the archenemy of God and the unseen power behind all unbelief and ungodliness. Those who follow him have in effect made him their god."

There is a reference to the "god of this world" who is never identified, but there is also a reference to some men's stomach being their god, is that also "satan"?

Read the context, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is being said here.

John 10:34 is a quote from the O.T. it is NOT an indepedent statement calling judges "theos" in the N.T.

Odsolo, the Greek in John 10:34 clearly uses the word Theos. In the OT this is from Psalms where these judges are called Elohim, which means Gods. I'm not going to continue arguing the obvious.

Where is your proof text that angels are called "theos." in the N.T.?

2 Cor. 4:4. The point is, created beings are called Theos in the NT, just like Jesus.

Irrelevant I was NOT discussing the LXX.

The LXX is not irelevant, it referrs to angels as Theos.

Tell us mr. expert when translating Hebrew into Greek what Greek word other than "Theos" can be used to translate, "elohim?" Take your time. Translation Greek is not probative.

All ancient Greek manuscripts have John 10:34 judges rendered "Theos". Irrelevant as to what other word other than Theos could have been used to translate Elohim, it's not. Our ancient manuscripts saw fit to translate Elohim as Theos, end of story. If most scholars are correct to assert that the Gospel of John was originally penned in Greek, then the apostle John himself used Theos for the Elohim of OT.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore unless you have a valid point to make, since it's not productive and a waste of time arguing the obvious. Apostle Paul told us not to engage in idle conversation.

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Has already been shown previously in this thread.

Unfortunately you have not shown it.

Yet Moses is'nt the Redeemer of mankind, is he.....

Moses is the delieverer of the Jews. Just because Jesus is the "redeemer of mankind" does not make him God.

There is not a single verse in the entire NT where Jesus said "I'm God". End of story.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

Deliberate blasphemous corruption of God's word to support false, unBiblical, doctrine. Anyone seeking the truth, can clearly see the term "king of kings" is qualified in this verse. Nebuchadnezzar is only called the king of kings of a certain specific group of kings, those from the north.

Eze 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.​

I think this speaks for itself. No comment necessary! Lol.

 

[2ducklow]

Hi Odsolo,





I think this speaks for itself. No comment necessary! Lol.

You're one cool dude. Nothing seems to rile you.

 

[Odsolo]

Hi Odsolo,
I think this speaks for itself. No comment necessary! Lol.

I see you have your rooting section. Your response is meaningless.
Deliberate blasphemous corruption of God's word to support false, unBiblical, doctrine. Anyone seeking the truth, can clearly see the term "king of kings" is qualified in this verse. Nebuchadnezzar is only called the king of kings of a certain specific group of kings, those from the north.

Eze 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.​

 

[Odsolo]

Hi Odsolo,
Satan is a Cherub(an angel), more to the point he's a creation. In 2 Cor. 4:4 ,"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." "The god of this age" certainly represents Satan. To deny it is to be blinded. Even the trinitarian NIV agrees, because it's obvious, and furnishes the following footnote, " god of this age -- The devil, who is the archenemy of God and the unseen power behind all unbelief and ungodliness. Those who follow him have in effect made him their god."

When Paul wrote that there were many gods of this age, including men's bellies, mammon, etc., and Paul also said ALL those gods were nothing because there is ONLY one God.

The footnote of the NIV is NOT scripture!

Read the context, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is being said here.

Then why can't you understand it?

Odsolo, the Greek in John 10:34 clearly uses the word Theos. In the OT this is from Psalms where these judges are called Elohim, which means Gods. I'm not going to continue arguing the obvious

You have already said you do not know Greek, so please don't even attempt to lecture me on the Greek. I have been speaking Greek since Sputnik I. Read any scholar, translation Greek is NOT probative. The only proof for the meaning of any word in Greek, or any other language, is how was it used by speakers of that language, in a primary source, not something translated from another language.

2 Cor. 4:4. The point is, created beings are called Theos in the NT, just like Jesus.

The point is you know nothing about Greek and you are just knee jerking rubbish you have been spoon fed. Jesus was NOT created! Check with your favorite Arian, Origen or EVERY church father of the first 2 centuries.

The LXX is not irelevant, it referrs to angels as Theos.

Translation Greek is NOT probative, ask any knowledgeable Greek scholar, which you ain't. Knee jerk, knee jerk, knee jerk.

All ancient Greek manuscripts have John 10:34 judges rendered "Theos". Irrelevant as to what other word other than Theos could have been used to translate Elohim, it's not. Our ancient manuscripts saw fit to translate Elohim as Theos, end of story. If most scholars are correct to assert that the Gospel of John was originally penned in Greek, then the apostle John himself used Theos for the Elohim of OT

.

No the apostle John did NOT use Theos for Elohim of the O.T.. John was quoting Jesus who was quoting the O.T. and there is no other word in Greek which has a similar meaning to Elohim in Hebrew.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore unless you have a valid point to make, since it's not productive and a waste of time arguing the obvious. Apostle Paul told us not to engage in idle conversation.

Good, that will not prevent me from showing how you misquote, quote out-of-context, misrepresent virtually everything you post trying to prop up your unBiblical, false religion.

If you are not JW then you are doing a good job of imitating one, you use their arguments and all their proofs, quoting their scribblings verbatim.

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,



Unfortunately you have not shown it.



Moses is the delieverer of the Jews. Just because Jesus is the "redeemer of mankind" does not make him God.

There is not a single verse in the entire NT where Jesus said "I'm God". End of story.

Neither is there a verse that shows Jesus to be a created being.

<><

 

[2ducklow]

Neither is there a verse that shows Jesus to be a created being.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

A clear messianic prophecy that states unequivocally that God created a new thing. i.e. the seed he used to fertilize Mary's egg. Mary compassed or went around a man to get the seed she needed to conceive. She got human, not imaginary or spirutal , seed that god created to cause her egg to become fertile. that's how babys get going. biology 101.
Col 1:15who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;Darby.
Jesus is not the firstborn of animal creation or rock creation. He is not the firstborn of the adamic race. that would be adam. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation of God. While no verse says Jesus was created. these verses teach that he was.
And of course there is this verse

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: (Revelation 3:14)

Jesus is the beginning of the new creation of god, not the old creation and not everything god created. that is obvious because god created heaven and earth way before he created jesus so Jesus is the beginning of the new thing he created that he spoke about in jer 31;22. That is the only creation that Jesus could logically be the beginning of.

to take firstborn to mean something other than being first one born would require that you take the meaning of firstborn in some non literal sense. likewise with created in jer. you would have to take created in some nonliteral sense. But i beleive god literally created a new thing, male seed. I take um literal . God literally created a new thing after creation, and Jesus is literally the firstborn of that new creation, the creation after the 6 days of creation.

Luke 2:7

And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (NET)


Jesus was the first-born of Mary and God. they were his parents. Mary didn't have other children before Jesus and neither did god.

And finally this next verse proves that Jesus and we his brothers are of the same creation.

Romans 8:29

?because those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (NET)


WE are new creations in Christ and Jesus is the first-born of all these new creations of god. WE cannot be his brothers and sisters unless we are of the same creation. So the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus is a created being. that is from the scriputre it is. Jesus is not the firstborn of all the earth and everything that is in it as many suppose but rather is the firstborn of all us brothers and sisters. that is the proof that firstborn is not firstborn over all creation.

 

[gort]

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

A clear messianic prophecy that states unequivocally that God created a new thing. i.e. the seed he used to fertilize Mary's egg. Mary compassed or went around a man to get the seed she needed to conceive. She got human, not imaginary or spirutal , seed that god created to cause her egg to become fertile. that's how babys get going. biology 101.
Col 1:15who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;Darby.
Jesus is not the firstborn of animal creation or rock creation. He is not the firstborn of the adamic race. that would be adam. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation of God. While no verse says Jesus was created. these verses teach that he was.
And of course there is this verse

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: (Revelation 3:14)

Jesus is the beginning of the new creation of god, not the old creation and not everything god created. that is obvious because god created heaven and earth way before he created jesus so Jesus is the beginning of the new thing he created that he spoke about in jer 31;22. That is the only creation that Jesus could logically be the beginning of.

to take firstborn to mean something other than being first one born would require that you take the meaning of firstborn in some non literal sense. likewise with created in jer. you would have to take created in some nonliteral sense. But i beleive god literally created a new thing, male seed. I take um literal . God literally created a new thing after creation, and Jesus is literally the firstborn of that new creation, the creation after the 6 days of creation.

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made 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.

Can you show where the Word was created?

The Word created all things.

Jesus is the Word, manifested in the flesh, the express image of Him.

<><

 

[2ducklow]

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made 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.

Can you show where the Word was created?

The Word created all things.

Jesus is the Word, manifested in the flesh, the express image of Him.

<><

as you probably know the greek word logos means 'word in action' therefore

the word in action was made flesh means god spoke Jesus into existance, or spoke the new thing he created resulting in Jesus being the firstborn of god. It does not mean that the word morphed into a 2 cell embryo.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.


God manifested himself to the world by being IN JESUS. Jesus is the image of god not Jesus is god. I am in many ways the image of my dad but I am not my dad. we are to be made in the image of Jesus but we are not nor shall we ever be Jesus. you seem to not understand the meaning of image. I think you believe image means 'is'.. Image does not mean is. Jesus is the image of god , not Jesus is god. image doesn't mean is.

God created all things though and for Jesus. I mean really that is the whole point of creation to make sons and daughters for God.

Once again you totally ignored everything I said about Jesus being the firstborn, just as you totally ignored everything i said aobut god speaking In jesus and god giving jesus his words to speak. citing verses you believe proof Jesus is god such as john 1:14 is not a rebutal. I gave an alternate interpetation to yours on john 1:14 but you always iognore everything i say.

 

[gort]

as you probably know the greek word logos means 'word in action' therefore

the word in action was made flesh means god spoke Jesus into existance, or spoke the new thing he created resulting in Jesus being the firstborn of god. It does not mean that the word morphed into a 2 cell embryo.

1) of speech

a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea

b) what someone has said

1) a word

2) the sayings of God

3) decree, mandate or order

4) of the moral precepts given by God

5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets

6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim

c) discourse

1) the act of speaking, speech

2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking

3) a kind or style of speaking

4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction

d) doctrine, teaching

e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative

f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law

g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed

2) its use as respect to the MIND alone

a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating

b) account, i.e. regard, consideration

c) account, i.e. reckoning, score

d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment

e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation

1) reason would

f) reason, cause, ground

3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

++++
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1133469892-1130.html

Jesus talked of being with the Father before the creation, in the Fathers bosom. He had awareness of existence.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Yes, God in Christ. The express image of God.

God manifested himself to the world by being IN JESUS.

Yes, the express image of God, in all ways.

I am in many ways the image of my dad but I am not my dad. we are to be made in the image of Jesus but we are not nor shall we ever be Jesus. you seem to not understand the meaning of image. I think you believe image means 'is'.. Image does not mean is. Jesus is the image of god , not Jesus is god. image doesn't mean is.

Ok, here is where I see you trying to understand something that we cannot, at this time, have a complete understanding of. Of course, this gives ammunition to you, however, I'm not gonna lie about it, or mince words.

1. Jesus had awareness of being with the Father before creation.
2. Jesus is the express image of God.

Hbr 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

express image:

1) the instrument used for engraving or carving

2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it

a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile


Again,

I am in many ways the image of my dad but I am not my dad. we are to be made in the image of Jesus but we are not nor shall we ever be Jesus.

Yes, we are in many ways the image of our Pops and Mums. And yes, we are not our Pops.

Jesus, as the Word, reflects all things of God in every way. Already, He has far surpassed us in this respect, yes?

And as you and I are not our Pops, neither is God the Son not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.

Yet, when Jesus said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", in all outward appearance, form of speach, in actions, in love, compassion, longsuffering He is the spitting image of God the Father.

God created all things though and for Jesus. I mean really that is the whole point of creation to make sons and daughters for God.

The whole point of all things is for Gods good pleasure. But you are also correct, as it is His good pleasure to share the Kingdom of Heaven and Himself.

Once again you totally ignored everything I said about Jesus being the firstborn, just as you totally ignored everything i said aobut god speaking In jesus and god giving jesus his words to speak. citing verses you believe proof Jesus is god such as john 1:14 is not a rebutal. I gave an alternate interpetation to yours on john 1:14 but you always iognore everything i say.

Welcome to unorthodox theology at Christian Forums. There are very few who come here to learn, very few seeking. Most things I post are ignored too, along with others here....


I'll address Jesus being the 'firstborn' later when I have time.
<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Neither is there a verse that shows Jesus to be a created being.

<><

Read Col. 1:15.

 

[Balthasar]

Odsolo,

I will reply to when if and when you have something of substance to say.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2ducklow,

Greetings and God bless you in Christ.

as you probably know the greek word logos means 'word in action' therefore

the word in action was made flesh means god spoke Jesus into existance, or spoke the new thing he created resulting in Jesus being the firstborn of god. It does not mean that the word morphed into a 2 cell embryo.

How true.

In the case of John 1:1, the "word" is personified as Jesus.Infact logos has a wide range of meanings, though it is usually translated "word" when it occurs in the NT. In English, it frequently appears in the names of scientific or other disciplines, eg. biology, psychology, theology.This term was initially employed by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (6th century BC) and was an important concept fro the Stoics. The term was taken over by Philo the Alexandrian who was roughly a contemporary of Paul.

2 ducklaw, in 1 Cor. 1:24, Paul says Christ is "the wisdom of God", using the Greek term sophia. In the later OT and apocryphal books, "wisdom’" was beginning to play a mediatorial role between God and creation not unlike that of Logos in Philo (cf. Prov. 8:22-31; Wisd. of Sol. 9:1-2). The idea that God’s relation to his creation was mediated through a subordinate being was thus developing in a variety of ways at that time. It must be noted that in Ben Sirach and the ot literature, Sophia is said to be created. How do you see this?

Thanks,

 

[gort]

Hi daneel,



Read Col. 1:15.

I don't see the word 'created' there.

<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2ducklow,

You're one cool dude. Nothing seems to rile you.

It's easy to be cool when one is in the right, and especially when your oponent does not even put up a fight. Here are some eaxmples:


Odsolo:

I see you have your rooting section. Your response is meaningless.
Deliberate blasphemous corruption of God's word to support false, unBiblical, doctrine. Anyone seeking the truth, can clearly see the term "king of kings" is qualified in this verse. Nebuchadnezzar is only called the king of kings of a certain specific group of kings, those from the north.

Eze 26:7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

His assertion is so far out I don't even know where to begin. First of all he doesn't even translate Eze. 26:7 correctly. Here's the NIV :

""For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army."

See the difference? And even to someone who does not speak the Hebrew, the context is clear, and it clearly calls him King of Kings, not a king of kings as this fella Odsolo would have everyone believe. And his "from the north" claim is outrageous, a red herring, it has no bearing on the "king of kings" appelation. Besides he doesn't even translate this part correctly! See NIV.

Odsolo:

You have already said you do not know Greek, so please don't even attempt to lecture me on the Greek. I have been speaking Greek since Sputnik I. Read any scholar, translation Greek is NOT probative. The only proof for the meaning of any word in Greek, or any other language, is how was it used by speakers of that language, in a primary source, not something translated from another language.

He's arguing my case. The Hebrew word Elohim in the OT is used both of God and of human judges(Psalm 82) and of Moses(Ex. 7:1). For example, the Hebrew word for God(Elohim) in Mark. 12:29 ,"Here O Israel the Lord our God(Elohim) is one God(Elohim)" is translated Theos is the Greek . Similarily, the Hebrew word Elohim in Psalm 82 for human judges is translated Theos in the Greek in John 10:34. So the words Elohimand Theos are used both of God and of Gods(as in human judges ) as the example proves in both the Hebrew and in the Greek.

From the OT: Elohim is God(YHWH),
Elohim is also used to designate human judges in Psalm 82

From the NT: Theos is God(YHWH),
Theos is also used to designate human judges in Psalm 82




Odsolo:

When Paul wrote that there were many gods of this age, including men's bellies, mammon, etc., and Paul also said ALL those gods were nothing because there is ONLY one God.

The footnote of the NIV is NOT scripture!

According to Odsolo, 2 Cor 4:4 "God of this world " does not mean Satan. But he has yet to tell us what "God of this word" means in 2 Cor. 4:4?

It's senseless, in my opinion, to conduct a conversation with a person who doesn't even agree with the obvious, 2 Cor 4:4 "God of this word" refers to Satan!


best wishes,.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

I don't see the word 'created' there.

<><

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; .."

Jesus is the first born of all creation, hence he's partitive of creation just as the first crayon in a pack of 10 is part of the pack.

 

[2ducklow]

Jesus talked of being with the Father before the creation, in the Fathers bosom. He had awareness of existence.

that is not correct. Jesus speaking as a standin for the first adam said "the glory I had with the before the world. The greek word is kosmos which means world system basically. the world system didn't begin until after adam sinned. and adam had the glory of god which is god himself , (john 17:5) before the world was. Adam lost the glory of god when he sinned and it wasn't restored to adam until the day of pentecost when god again indwelt his people, All the old time saints, except for a few exceptions like David, and John the baptist. had the spirit with them and not in them. even the apostles in training did not have the spirit of god in them until after pentecost.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

The bible says god foreknew christ which means god knew christ by foreknowledge before he existed. Which negates the idea that christ pre existed.

1 Peter 1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,ASV

Yes, God in Christ. The express image of God.

I'm not sure what you mean here. God in christ is the express image of god? or christ is the express image of god. if the later then I agree.






Ok, here is where I see you trying to understand something that we cannot, at this time, have a complete understanding of. Of course, this gives ammunition to you, however, I'm not gonna lie about it, or mince words.

1. Jesus had awareness of being with the Father before creation.
2. Jesus is the express image of God.[/quote]
I don't see how Jesus being the image of god would make him god. It would be proof that he is not god. for there is only one god and jesus is the image of that one and only god . To say Jesus is god would result in 2 gods at least. and Of course, I disagree with #1, interpretation as I showed previously in this thread.\

Hbr 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

express image:

1) the instrument used for engraving or carving

2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it

a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile

If you take 'the image of god' to mean that Jesus is an exact reproduction of God in every respect, and therefore he is god, then you have 2 gods which contradicts scripture that says there is only one god. you have the original god, god the father, and a rerproduction of that original god, Jesus. 2 gods. calling your 2 gods one god is just denying reality.

Again,



Yes, we are in many ways the image of our Pops and Mums. And yes, we are not our Pops.

Jesus, as the Word, reflects all things of God in every way. Already, He has far surpassed us in this respect, yes?

So far, but one day we will be like him and see him as he is when we are perfected.

And as you and I are not our Pops, neither is God the Son not God the Father, nor God the Holy Spirit.

you have just listed 3 different gods that you call one god, contrary to all logic.

Yet, when Jesus said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", in all outward appearance, form of speach, in actions, in love, compassion, longsuffering He is the spitting image of God the Father.

yea i guess.

The whole point of all things is for Gods good pleasure. But you are also correct, as it is His good pleasure to share the Kingdom of Heaven and Himself.

d'accord

Welcome to unorthodox theology at Christian Forums. There are very few who come here to learn, very few seeking. Most things I post are ignored too, along with others here....

well, not responding to someones points is a good indicator that one doesn't care for learning the truth. I have learned things even changed my beliefs on some issues as a result of coming here because I investigate points people bring up. I want to know the truth, but I will not accept contradictions, illogic as truth. you have in this post responded quite well to what I said in my previous post.

I'll address Jesus being the 'firstborn' later when I have time.
<><

ok

 

[2ducklow]

Hi 2ducklow,

Greetings and God bless you in Christ.




How true.

In the case of John 1:1, the "word" is personified as Jesus.Infact logos has a wide range of meanings, though it is usually translated "word" when it occurs in the NT. In English, it frequently appears in the names of scientific or other disciplines, eg. biology, psychology, theology.This term was initially employed by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (6th century BC) and was an important concept fro the Stoics. The term was taken over by Philo the Alexandrian who was roughly a contemporary of Paul.

2 ducklaw, in 1 Cor. 1:24, Paul says Christ is "the wisdom of God", using the Greek term sophia. In the later OT and apocryphal books, "wisdom’" was beginning to play a mediatorial role between God and creation not unlike that of Logos in Philo (cf. Prov. 8:22-31; Wisd. of Sol. 9:1-2). The idea that God’s relation to his creation was mediated through a subordinate being was thus developing in a variety of ways at that time. It must be noted that in Ben Sirach and the ot literature, Sophia is said to be created. How do you see this?

Thanks,

greetings in the name of Jesus;
I do recall instances , i can't remember where just now, where wisdom is personified, but that is just a tool of speech. wisdom is not a being. logos is personified in john chapter one but it too is not a being. . I don't really have any knowledge of the septuagint translation of prov. 8:22-31. I do not consider the wisdom of Sol. to be the word of god.

Yes logos has a number of meanings and is translated, i believe the figure is 1/3 of the time as something other than word. for example Jesus said "every idle word that men shall speak they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgement." well the word translated 'account' is the greek word logos. so if Jesus is the logos then we are going to give a Jesus of ourselves on the day of Judgement. Please don't rofl.
Matthew 12:36 And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi 2 ducklaw,

I do recall instances , i can't remember where just now, where wisdom is personified, but that is just a tool of speech. wisdom is not a being. logos is personified in john chapter one but it too is not a being. . I don't really have any knowledge of the septuagint translation of prov. 8:22-31. I do not consider the wisdom of Sol. to be the word of god.

My sentiments also.If wisdom is indeed an actual personification of Christ, as the Catholic Church teaches and Christ is God as they also claim, then they are actually saying Jesus Christ is the Goddess Wisdom, like Pravati of the Hindus , since Sophia is always rendered in the feminine gender . Also Logos personified is not to be taken in the literal sense where , the Logos did not become living cells. No , Christ's words are the Word of God.


The trinitarian argument is usually unsound. For example, if Christ is God simply because he's called King of Kings, as trinitarians argue, then so is Nebuchadnezzar, since he too is called king of kings. And the trinitarian argument that the one is called king of kings "in an unqualified',non-restrictive sense but the other isn't , therefore the former is God, is a red herring which evades the issue . -- Both are called King of Kings! Furthermore it is not even a correct argument to argue christ is non-restricted. ! Being creations, both Christ and Nebuchadnezzar are restrictive agents in what they can do. Jesus said in all honesty, "On my own I can do nothing."

best wishes,