Were Adam and Eve the first?

[depthdeception]

Are you suggesting that the Bible is not God's written word?

Let me rephrase your question to show the issues involved:

"Are you suggesting that the Bible is not God's written Logos?"

Do you see the problem? When one calls the bible the "Word" of God, one is basically asserting that the Scriptures are the Logos of God. What is the Logos of God? The Logos, according to John 1:1, is that which from eternity has been with God and is consubstantial in nature with God. The passage further identifies the Logos not as God's spoken (or written) word, but rather as Christ.

Therefore, to say that the Scriptures are God's "Word" is to say that the Scriptures have, from eternity existed with God, and that they are consubstantial in nature with Christ. Thus, the trinity goes from three persons to four. So then, to equate the Scriptures with the "Word of God" (which is Christ, the eternal logos of God) is to endow the Scriptures with deity and demand that the Scriptures be worshipped equally with God, for they are God.

Obviously, most Christians do not think this about the Scriptures. However, we must be careful with the language we utilize in our thinking about these issues, for language is the vehicle of theological thought, and can often take us in a direction we never intended to go...

 

[Critias]

Let me rephrase your question to show the issues involved:

"Are you suggesting that the Bible is not God's written Logos?"

Logos simply means logic or wisdom. Within context it can mean more than that, such as thing.

It is used as a metaphor in John 1:1 to refer to Christ, it was not meant to say logos is defined as Christ only.

If you are suggesting that Logos is meant to be defined solely as Christ, then you have around 300 New Testament passages to reinterpt as Christ and not merely as word or another meaning.

Do you see the problem?

Yes, I think I do.

When one calls the bible the "Word" of God, one is basically asserting that the Scriptures are the Logos of God. What is the Logos of God? The Logos, according to John 1:1, is that which from eternity has been with God and is consubstantial in nature with God. The passage further identifies the Logos not as God's spoken (or written) word, but rather as Christ.

You are incorrect. In John 1:1 Christ is referred to as the Logos. Logos is not defined as Christ. There is a difference. Try looking up logos in a lexicon and find the passages it is used and then interpret logos as Christ and see what happens. Here is an example:

Matthew 5:32
"[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]but I [/font][/font][/font]say[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason(logos) of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.[/font][/font][/font][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]"

[/font][/font][/font]The above verse, by your logic, should read "for the Jesus of unchasity..."

What it seems that you are asserting is the logos can only mean Christ, therefore those 300+ passages in the New Testament that aren't translated as Christ are wrong. Furthermore if one says anything contrary to logos being equal to Jesus, then it is heresy.

Therefore, to say that the Scriptures are God's "Word" is to say that the Scriptures have, from eternity existed with God, and that they are consubstantial in nature with Christ. Thus, the trinity goes from three persons to four. So then, to equate the Scriptures with the "Word of God" (which is Christ, the eternal logos of God) is to endow the Scriptures with deity and demand that the Scriptures be worshipped equally with God, for they are God.

Only by your assertion that logos is always defined as Jesus does that work.

Obviously, most Christians do not think this about the Scriptures. However, we must be careful with the language we utilize in our thinking about these issues, for language is the vehicle of theological thought, and can often take us in a direction we never intended to go...

I can equally say that obviously Christians have not look into the word logos and have understood its meaning.

Yes, you ought to be careful with the laguage, otherwise you are also asserting the centurion is Jesus.

Matthew 8:8
"[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]But the centurion said,(logos) "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed."

[/font][/font][/font]This would say "But the centurion Jesus,..."[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[/font][/font][/font]

 

[Critias]

So the question remains, are you asserting that the Bible is not God's written word?

 

[depthdeception]

"Are you suggesting that the Bible is not God's written Logos?"

Logos simply means logic or wisdom. Within context it can mean more than that, such as thing.

It is used as a metaphor in John 1:1 to refer to Christ, it was not meant to say logos is defined as Christ only.

If you are suggesting that Logos is meant to be defined solely as Christ, then you have around 300 New Testament passages to reinterpt as Christ and not merely as word or another meaning.

I realize that "logos" in a general sense means logic, "word", or wisdom. However, I am not using it in a general sense. I am using it precisely in conjuntion with the term "of God." I am not speaking of "logos" in a generic sense, but I am talking about the identity of the "Logos of God," or "God's Logos." When utilized in this sense, the "Word" can only be applied to Christ, for Christ is the only one who is spoken of as "the Logos that is with God and is God."

You are incorrect. In John 1:1 Christ is referred to as the Logos. Logos is not defined as Christ. There is a difference. Try looking up logos in a lexicon and find the passages it is used and then interpret logos as Christ and see what happens.

Again, I am not talking about logos in a generic sense. I am speaking of it in relation to the identity of "God's Logos." In this sense, there is no difference between "God's Logos" and Christ, and moreover, the term cannot be applied to anything else without necessarily elevating that to which the term is applited to having deity amd being consubstantial with the divine nature.

Therefore, I can ignore your example, for it is not even within the range of the meaning I have been discussing.

What it seems that you are asserting is the logos can only mean Christ, therefore those 300+ passages in the New Testament that aren't translated as Christ are wrong. Furthermore if one says anything contrary to logos being equal to Jesus, then it is heresy.

It only seems that way because you haven't critically engaged the restricted meaning by which I have been referring to "Logos."

Only by your assertion that logos is always defined as Jesus does that work.

This is true, when the logos I am speaking about is limited to "God's Logos", not "logos" in a generic sense.

Now that I have more fully explained my meaning, perhaps you can go back to my previous post and engage the issue one more time.

 

[depthdeception]

So the question remains, are you asserting that the Bible is not God's written word?

Given the definitions which I have outlined, yes, I am asserting that the Bible is not God's written, spoken, mimed, etc. Logos. Only Christ is the Word of God.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I have the same reservations with the "Word of God" terminology that depthdeception has. I believe the Bible contains and is powered by the Word of God, but is not exhaustive of the Word of God, which is in actuality the Truth of God in its totality. Just before you came to these forums I wrote a post that explained my views on this. My thrust was that the Word of God is the very Truth of God, which we as mortals do not have access to in purest form except in the person of Jesus. The Bible is the definitive testimony to the Word of God written by believers, and equipped with the authority of God by the Holy Spirit's revelation and prompting to write it. But insofar as it is inaccurate in even one detail it falls short of absolute truth, and hence it is inaccurate to say that the Bible = the Word of God. Remember what I said about God not being able to create something perfect without creating more of Himself? Jesus said "I am the Truth." This means that the Word of God is indeed to be equated with Jesus in full terms. The Bible is the product of man, albeit testifying under inspiration to the Word of God. God ensured that necessary aspects of His Word were communicated in the sacred Scriptures.

That said, I understand how we can refer to the truth of God as it is revealed in the Bible as the Word of God.

 

[depthdeception]

I still don't understand how you can make the leap from this

The Bible is the product of man, albeit testifying under inspiration to the Word of God.

to this

That said, I understand how we can refer to the truth of God as it is revealed in the Bible as the Word of God.

If Christ, as the eternal Logos, is the self-revelation of God, how can the truth of God be further revealed in the bible? Was Christ, as the Logos, lacking in revelatory capacity, that another revelation was needed? Obviously, this is not what you advocate. However, this necessarily leads one to reject that the bible is the revelation of God, because Christ, as the eternal Logos, is the revelation of God. Complete in deity, Christ is concomitantly complete in revelation. No further revelation is needed. So what of Scripture? It is a testimony to the self-revelation of God in teh person of Christ, the eternal Logos of Christ. To speak of the Scriptures as the Logos of God in theological terms is to create a fourth "person" of the Godhead, for the Scriptures, in such a theological formulation, are equated with Christ, and necessarily Christ's deity.

I think you are on the right track, but I would just leave off trying to salvage the language of "Word of God" in relation to the Bible. The Scriptures themselves do not even claim such status about themselves, therefore, there is no need (nor justification) for imputing such a status to them. There is much more precise language that can be utilized that will aid in everybody's understanding.

 

[Didaskomenos]

If Christ, as the eternal Logos, is the self-revelation of God, how can the truth of God be further revealed in the bible? Was Christ, as the Logos, lacking in revelatory capacity, that another revelation was needed? Obviously, this is not what you advocate. However, this necessarily leads one to reject that the bible is the revelation of God, because Christ, as the eternal Logos, is the revelation of God. Complete in deity, Christ is concomitantly complete in revelation. No further revelation is needed. So what of Scripture? It is a testimony to the self-revelation of God in teh person of Christ, the eternal Logos of Christ. To speak of the Scriptures as the Logos of God in theological terms is to create a fourth "person" of the Godhead, for the Scriptures, in such a theological formulation, are equated with Christ, and necessarily Christ's deity.

I appreciate your attempt to reave the Fundamentalists' favorite term and identify Jesus as the Word made flesh. But the Scriptures themselves are pretty clear that God revealed Himself in more ways than in Jesus Himself. I mean, look at Rev. 1:1, for example. And Psalm 119 is a Psalm devoted not to Jesus, but to the truth of God as it came to David through whatever Scriptures he then had access to. Are trying to make contradistinct the Bible and the Word, or the Word and revelation? The former is definitely more tenable than the latter.

I think you are on the right track, but I would just leave off trying to salvage the language of "Word of God" in relation to the Bible. The Scriptures themselves do not even claim such status about themselves, therefore, there is no need (nor justification) for imputing such a status to them. There is much more precise language that can be utilized that will aid in everybody's understanding.

To the last, I assent. Hence my war on the term. as used by fundies. But my argument remains: the term "word of God" as it occurs in the Old Testament refers to revelation apart from Jesus - but they were mere glimpses of the Truth. This is why the Bible contains the Word of God. Jesus remains the only complete, infallible, inerrant expression of the Truth of God, that is, He alone deserves the title "Word of God". He is all that is necessary for knowing God. The Scriptures are only valuable inasmuch as they point us to the Word.

 

[depthdeception]

I appreciate your attempt to reave the Fundamentalists' favorite term and identify Jesus as the Word made flesh. But the Scriptures themselves are pretty clear that God revealed Himself in more ways than in Jesus Himself. I mean, look at Rev. 1:1, for example. And Psalm 119 is a Psalm devoted not to Jesus, but to the truth of God as it came to David through whatever Scriptures he then had access to. Are trying to make contradistinct the Bible and the Word, or the Word and revelation? The former is definitely more tenable than the latter.

The point I am trying to make is that these things (nature, the bible, etc.) are not the self-revelation of God, the eternal Logos. In other words, the only self-revelation of God is Christ, the Word. One might loosely say that God is revealed in creation, the bible, etc. However, in a theological sense, it is only through Christ, the Logos of God, that God Godself can be revealed in anything. Concerning David, in speaking of the revelation of Chirst, he is necessarily speaking of Chirst (although he obviously does not know that he is speaking of Christ), for it is Christ alone who is the eternal Logos, the self-revelation of God.

Yes, I am trying to bifurcate "bible" and "Word." "Word" and "revelation" cannot be separated, as Christ, the Word, is the self-revelation of God.

But my argument remains: the term "word of God" as it occurs in the Old Testament refers to revelation apart from Jesus - but they were mere glimpses of the Truth.

I agree that the OT refers to revelation apart from Jesus, the historical individual. However, if Christ is the eternal Logos of God, then Christ is necessarily the revelaton of which all the biblical writers speak, whether or not they are theologically aware of the reality of Christ or not. Thus, I feel one must afirm the "eternality" of Christ's revelation, which precedes and proceeds the Incarnation of Christ in the historical person of Jesus.

This is why the Bible contains the Word of God. Jesus remains the only complete, infallible, inerrant expression of the Truth of God, that is, He alone deserves the title "Word of God". He is all that is necessary for knowing God. The Scriptures are only valuable inasmuch as they point us to the Word.

*Sigh!* I want to agree with you so much, but you keep using the language about the bible "containing" Christ. You've already rightly affirmed that the Scriptures are a testimony to Christ, the Logos. Why not just stick to that language? It is much more theologically accurate (for what it seems you are affirming) and prevents under misunderstanding of your position.

Thank you for your thoughtful posts!

 

[Didaskomenos]

Well, the Hellenistic background of the term, especially in Plato, has to do with a distinction between true rationality and the expression of it. I believe that the Word of God equaling Jesus is an incarnation no less than His appearance as a human. In other words, rather than being content just being Truth, He took on the role of the expression of that Truth. Jesus was the Word of God, but the Word of God is not necessarily Jesus the person.

David would have disagreed if you said that the Scriptures he was lauding did not contain some measure of the revelation of God, and hence the Word. Any accurate revelation of Truth is the Word of God (maybe you'd prefer to say that Jesus is present). Wherever there is Truth, there is Jesus. I'm not sure why you insist that Jesus is not present in the Scriptures! That's all I'm saying.

Would you be more comfortable if I said that the Word of God is present in the Bible rather than contained? Just to be clear that Jesus is not boxed up inside a book somewhere.

 

[Critias]

I realize that "logos" in a general sense means logic, "word", or wisdom. However, I am not using it in a general sense. I am using it precisely in conjuntion with the term "of God." I am not speaking of "logos" in a generic sense, but I am talking about the identity of the "Logos of God," or "God's Logos." When utilized in this sense, the "Word" can only be applied to Christ, for Christ is the only one who is spoken of as "the Logos that is with God and is God."

I see, so all people are subjected to how you use the word logos? We are not suppose to deviate from your perception of this strictly held definition of logos?

Again, I am not talking about logos in a generic sense. I am speaking of it in relation to the identity of "God's Logos." In this sense, there is no difference between "God's Logos" and Christ, and moreover, the term cannot be applied to anything else without necessarily elevating that to which the term is applited to having deity amd being consubstantial with the divine nature.

So, what if I am not using it in your sense of perception? What if I have my own from my training in the Greek language? Can I then call the Bible the Word of God?

So God's word cannot be used any other way that to mean Christ?

How about these verses:

Luke 8:21; Romans 9:6; 2 Timothy 2:9; Hebrews 5:12; 2 Peter 3:5

Each of these verses are in a form of 'ho logos tou theou' or 'God's Word' and don't mean Jesus Christ.

I would assert that what comes from God's mouth is equal to who God is. If the Bible originated in God, then His Word is equal to who He is. It is not another person within the trinity, but rather His own Word, distinctly part of Him.

Can I call the red words, Jesus words? Or is that heresy too?

Therefore, I can ignore your example, for it is not even within the range of the meaning I have been discussing.

You can ignore anything you like. The fact is that God's word is used within the Bible and does not mean Christ. Neither is John 1:1 using the phrase God's word. It is declaring Jesus Christ's divinity, using logos has a metaphor for Christ to reveal that He is the ultimate of wisdom and that He carries God's Word because He is God.

It only seems that way because you haven't critically engaged the restricted meaning by which I have been referring to "Logos."

I have.

This is true, when the logos I am speaking about is limited to "God's Logos", not "logos" in a generic sense.

Now that I have more fully explained my meaning, perhaps you can go back to my previous post and engage the issue one more time.

Well, we have 5 verses that are limited to God's Word and they don't mean Jesus Christ.

 

[GenemZ]

Hey, you're the one who is saying that Christ is the Word and that the Scriptures are also the Word (the Scriptures = Christ), not me. You also said that the Scriptures were "created" by God. Therefore, if Christ is the Word and the Scriptures are the Word, and the Scriptures were created by God, then one must naturally conclude that Christ was also created.

Writing is an invention. Right? It was created. Printing presses are an invention. It is a created thing. God took what was a created thing, and used it to record the thoughts of the Word. The Word was the means by which God created as to communicate with creation of men and angels.

Before God initiated creation, he had already established the means to communicate with that creation. In the beginning of creation was the Word existing. The Word was God. If God had not decided to create men and angels? Then, there would be no need to produce the Word out from Himself.

Before anything was created God did not need writing, nor words. God already knows all things. When it was only God that existed, God had no need to speak. No need to reach someone outside of Himself. God produced what we call "the Word" as a means to convey what it is he wants us to know from Him, to us.

That's enuf for now....

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Given the definitions which I have outlined, yes, I am asserting that the Bible is not God's written, spoken, mimed, etc. Logos. Only Christ is the Word of God.

Are the words you just wrote, you? Or, are you not responsible for what you just wrote?

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[depthdeception]

Well, the Hellenistic background of the term, especially in Plato, has to do with a distinction between true rationality and the expression of it. I believe that the Word of God equaling Jesus is an incarnation no less than His appearance as a human. In other words, rather than being content just being Truth, He took on the role of the expression of that Truth. Jesus was the Word of God, but the Word of God is not necessarily Jesus the person.

Let me be more exact in what I have said. I have consistently said that Christ is the eternal Logos. I have been very careful to use Christ, not Jesus. I agree that the "Word of GOd" is not necessarily Jesus the historical person, but I would assert that the eternal Logos of God is exclusively Christ. Furthermore, to "be" something is to concomitantly be the expression of it. THerefore, if there is an expression of Logos, Christ is necessarily the exclusive revealer of Logos.

David would have disagreed if you said that the Scriptures he was lauding did not contain some measure of the revelation of God, and hence the Word. Any accurate revelation of Truth is the Word of God

I am not saying that the Scriptures David (and all the other biblical writers) was lauding did not contain some measure of the revelation fo God. However, I would insist, from a theological perspective, that this revelation of God is exclusively Christ, the Logos of God. It does not matter if David realized this or not. For God to be revealed is for Christ, the eternal Logos, to reveal God. There is no revelation apart from the self-revelation of God in Christ the Logos.

(maybe you'd prefer to say that Jesus is present). Wherever there is Truth, there is Jesus. I'm not sure why you insist that Jesus is not present in the Scriptures! That's all I'm saying.

Again, I have never said that "wherever there is Truth, there is Jesus." I have only said that any revelation of truth is properly and exclusively applicable to Christ the Logos. This is what I'm saying.

Would you be more comfortable if I said that the Word of God is present in the Bible rather than contained? Just to be clear that Jesus is not boxed up inside a book somewhere.

In my understanding, "present" is no better than "contained." Either term leads to the conclusion that the Scriptures = Revelation fo God. I reject this claim. Christ, the Logos of God, is the exclusive revelation of God, and the SCriptures are a testament to the self-revelation of God in Christ.

 

[depthdeception]

I see, so all people are subjected to how you use the word logos? We are not suppose to deviate from your perception of this strictly held definition of logos?

To speak of Christ as Logos in the way that I am doing is a generally accepted approach in theology, not to mention that the Scriptures themselves make the distinction. I am not trying to strictly define "logos" in a generic sense. I am merely attempting to make a necessary distinction about "logos," as a general term, and "Logos" as it is applied to Christ, not only Scripturally, but also theologically.

So, what if I am not using it in your sense of perception? What if I have my own from my training in the Greek language? Can I then call the Bible the Word of God?

This has nothing to do with training in the Greek language. I am speaking theologically, not textually. You can call the bible whatever you want, but if you do not operate within the theological distinctions, we will be unable to have a conversation. If you want to contine arguing textually, be my guest. However, you are arguing with the wrong person, for I am looking at this idea from a theological perspective.

So God's word cannot be used any other way that to mean Christ?

How about these verses:

Luke 8:21; Romans 9:6; 2 Timothy 2:9; Hebrews 5:12; 2 Peter 3:5

Each of these verses are in a form of 'ho logos tou theou' or 'God's Word' and don't mean Jesus Christ.

Again, I am not making a textual argument, as if every utilization of "logos" means Christ. I am saying that from a theological perspective, it is improper to apply the theological understanding of Logos to anything or anyone but Christ, who alone is the eternal Logos of God. It's like the phrase "son of God." From a theological perspective, this phrase is loaded with meaning when applied to Christ. However, one would not assume that because the bible calls Adam "the son of God" that Adam is consubstantial in nature with God. Rather, theological distinctions are made in the utilization of common phrases depending upon the context and to whom or what the phrases are applied. This is elementary textual and theological stuff.

I would assert that what comes from God's mouth is equal to who God is. If the Bible originated in God, then His Word is equal to who He is. It is not another person within the trinity, but rather His own Word, distinctly part of Him.

If the bible originated in God, then the bible--by virtue of having origin--is created. THerefore, you have made some that has origin and genesis equal to God. Thus God is the originator of something equal to Godself? Perhaps you would wish to rephrase that. I'll give you the opportunity before I show you the necessary and logical conclusion of such thinking.

Can I call the red words, Jesus words? Or is that heresy too?

??

You can ignore anything you like. The fact is that God's word is used within the Bible and does not mean Christ. Neither is John 1:1 using the phrase God's word. It is declaring Jesus Christ's divinity, using logos has a metaphor for Christ to reveal that He is the ultimate of wisdom and that He carries God's Word because He is God.

I don't disagree that the term "word of God" is used in a variety of ways. But I am not speaking textually. I am talking about a theological distinction between Christ, as the eternal Logos of God, and the Scriptures, which are not the eternal Logos of GOd, but a witness to the eternal Logos of God.

I have.

No you haven't. You have continued to raise petty textual issues, when I am not even talking about the textual uses of "word of God," but rather the theological uses.

Well, we have 5 verses that are limited to God's Word and they don't mean Jesus Christ.

Good for them! I am not talking about textual usages!

 

[depthdeception]

The Word was the means by which God created as to communicate with creation of men and angels.

I agree. And the Word is exclusively Christ, the eternal Logos of God. Christ is the self-revelation of God.

Before God initiated creation, he had already established the means to communicate with that creation. In the beginning of creation was the Word existing. The Word was God. If God had not decided to create men and angels? Then, there would be no need to produce the Word out from Himself.

Yes. Christ, as the Logos of God, has always existed, and has always been the Logos. I have no argument with this.

Before anything was created God did not need writing, nor words. God already knows all things. When it was only God that existed, God had no need to speak. No need to reach someone outside of Himself. God produced what we call "the Word" as a means to convey what it is he wants us to know from Him, to us.

A paragraph before you said that "in the beginning was the Word existing. The Word was God." Now you are saying that God "produced" the Word. Which is it? Is the Word eternal, or is it "produced" (created)? You have been quite inconsistent on this point...

 

[depthdeception]

Are the words you just wrote, you? Or, are you not responsible for what you just wrote?

What I have written is what I truly believe about Christ and about the Scriptures, and the necessary distinction between the two. So yes, I take responsibility for what I have written.

 

[GenemZ]

What I have written is what I truly believe about Christ and about the Scriptures, and the necessary distinction between the two. So yes, I take responsibility for what I have written.

Then you can be taken on YOUR WORD.

Now if you said it from a distance through a loud speaker? As, well as wrote it here? Would your intentions be any less clear?

The reason Christ came in the flesh was not to make his Word flesh, as to make it more believable! The Word became flesh so he could become as a man and die in our place! If Jesus did not have to die for our sins, the Word would not have had needed to become flesh! To come in the flesh, did not make the Word of God more believable! People were still rejecting Jesus Christ in the flesh!

John 5:45-47 niv
"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"


Jesus was equating at least equal accountability for what was written, with what he spoke in the flesh. You seem to say that what he said in the flesh holds more truth to it than what he had put in writing.

When you have a written guarantee, the guarantee is not more effective when the one who wrote it appears before you and gives it to you. Matter of fact, lawyers always say, "get it in writing!" Don't just take someone's word on something! "

Therefore, we actually have a more solid guarantee by having God's Word in writing! One can always mishear what was said. We can also misread. But, with it in writing, we can have others double check to make sure we have it right. By only hearing it, someone could always accuse us that we heard wrong. That, "the Lord did not really say that!"

By putting it in writing, God made his Word verifiable forever! It locks in his Word that much the more by having it made continuously repeatable for all us of us to see! Moses heard God, alone. If he only passed along what he said verbally? And, that got passed down verbally? We would all be playing spiritual post office, and over the centuries we would have no idea what was really said! God, by having his Word put down in writing, has locked his Word in time and space FOREVER!

Eve received the spoken Word. It was only one sentence. A simple command. And, she was made to doubt what was said. "Did God really say?"

If she had it in writing? Satan would not have been able to play his game so easily. It would have been much harder to twist the Word! For, what was said is repeatable when it is in writing! Eve had added to the Word. She was never commanded not to touch the fruit. She was only commanded not to eat it. She added, "shall not touch." She was the first example of adding to the Word. It misled her. For when she touched it nothing happened!

Jesus is the LIVING WORD! What he spoke became the Word of God. Yet? When Satan tempted him? What did he do to refute Satan's evil?

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."


Jesus quoted what was written! We see that in Matthew 4:4! Here was the living Word, Jesus Christ, quoting the written Word to refute Satan! That should tell us something! (and, to most of us, it does!)

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.


7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. "


If the Living Word could stand on the Written Word to defeat Satan!?????

What does that tell us? Satan fears the Written Word being made clear and understood!

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[Critias]

To speak of Christ as Logos in the way that I am doing is a generally accepted approach in theology, not to mention that the Scriptures themselves make the distinction. I am not trying to strictly define "logos" in a generic sense. I am merely attempting to make a necessary distinction about "logos," as a general term, and "Logos" as it is applied to Christ, not only Scripturally, but also theologically.



This has nothing to do with training in the Greek language. I am speaking theologically, not textually. You can call the bible whatever you want, but if you do not operate within the theological distinctions, we will be unable to have a conversation. If you want to contine arguing textually, be my guest. However, you are arguing with the wrong person, for I am looking at this idea from a theological perspective.



Again, I am not making a textual argument, as if every utilization of "logos" means Christ. I am saying that from a theological perspective, it is improper to apply the theological understanding of Logos to anything or anyone but Christ, who alone is the eternal Logos of God. It's like the phrase "son of God." From a theological perspective, this phrase is loaded with meaning when applied to Christ. However, one would not assume that because the bible calls Adam "the son of God" that Adam is consubstantial in nature with God. Rather, theological distinctions are made in the utilization of common phrases depending upon the context and to whom or what the phrases are applied. This is elementary textual and theological stuff.



If the bible originated in God, then the bible--by virtue of having origin--is created. THerefore, you have made some that has origin and genesis equal to God. Thus God is the originator of something equal to Godself? Perhaps you would wish to rephrase that. I'll give you the opportunity before I show you the necessary and logical conclusion of such thinking.



??



I don't disagree that the term "word of God" is used in a variety of ways. But I am not speaking textually. I am talking about a theological distinction between Christ, as the eternal Logos of God, and the Scriptures, which are not the eternal Logos of GOd, but a witness to the eternal Logos of God.



No you haven't. You have continued to raise petty textual issues, when I am not even talking about the textual uses of "word of God," but rather the theological uses.



Good for them! I am not talking about textual usages!

So far, it has seemed that you are talking about textual issues. You first started this because you are against people saying the Bible is the written word of God. Now, you are saying we are talking only from a theological perspective. So, those that are not theologians, can they call the Bible the Word of God without committing heresy?

Now, lets talk theology. First off, are you aware that in seminary school and in masters/phd level theology courses they refer to the Bible as God's written word? Why would theology courses do this, if your claim is that it is wrong?

The Bible has commonly been refered to as God's Word all the back and before the middle ages. People understand that if you say God's Word you are refering to the Bible. If one is refering to Christ, they usually say call Him by name, Jesus Christ or use references to Him such as Son of God.

I am not claiming the Bible is God. I am claiming that the Bible originated from God. When Jesus said no man can get to the Father but through Him, was that Jesus' words? If that is Jesus' words, do the words give to truth to who He is? If so, then they are apart of Him. You cannot separate the fact of what He said from who He is.

Is it your intention to separate what is written about God from God; to say that what is written is really not God. What is the Bible, teachings of men or teachings of God?

When one says God's Word it is commonly understood that the Bible contains what God has to say to mankind; that it is not all God has said, but contains what God wants it to contain. It is those who just want to argue and bring more division within the Church that will make the argument you are making now.

Christian theology, one that actually is believing all the Bible has to say - I say this because many groups claim to be Christians and do not believe what the Bible says - has always refered to the Bible as God's written word.

When you raise this argument, it seems you really are against the Bible containing God's teachings and you seem to want to assert that they are not God's they are man's.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I am not saying that the Scriptures David (and all the other biblical writers) was lauding did not contain some measure of the revelation fo God. However, I would insist, from a theological perspective, that this revelation of God is exclusively Christ, the Logos of God. It does not matter if David realized this or not. For God to be revealed is for Christ, the eternal Logos, to reveal God. There is no revelation apart from the self-revelation of God in Christ the Logos.

I agree that Bible is man's testimony to Truth, and not in and of itself as a unit the very truth of God. But the message God expresses through it is at that moment and for that purpose an expression of the Logos of God, and hence True and what it is communicating is Truth.

You just said that David found some measure of the revelation of God in the Scriptures, and that the revelation of God is exclusively Christ. Therefore he found Christ in the Scriptures. Hence, necessarily Christ as theological truth (the Logos) must be present in the Scriptures (to say nothing of the Gospels!). In other words, if I see a tree through a window, that is because the window is sufficiently transparent for me to see the tree. No one would argue that I was actually only seeing the window, or the window's testimony to the tree. I believe there is actual Truth present in written form in the Bible, True enough to allow us a glimpse of the Logos. But our analogy goes deeper than the suface level. There may be the objection, "Just as we cannot say the tree is physically present in the window, we cannot say the Logos is present in the Scriptures," - but we can in fact say both. Sight is passive - the light from the objects we are looking at must make it to our eyes, rather than any projection from our eyes reaching the tree. Similarly, our view of the Logos is made possible in the Scriptures because 1) the medium is satisfactory 2) the Logos chooses to invade the medium from time to time. And as you'll recall, my original quote was that the truth we find in the Bible can be referred to as the Word of God, whether we called it "theologically Christ" or simply call it Truth.

Again, I have never said that "wherever there is Truth, there is Jesus." I have only said that any revelation of truth is properly and exclusively applicable to Christ the Logos. This is what I'm saying.

But the former logically follows from the latter.

It just occurred to me that you may be bifurcating "expression of truth" from "revelation of truth". Is that what you are doing? Greek logos 'word' relates much closer to the broad sense of "expression", which can also be used of revelation.

In my understanding, "present" is no better than "contained." Either term leads to the conclusion that the Scriptures = Revelation fo God. I reject this claim. Christ, the Logos of God, is the exclusive revelation of God, and the SCriptures are a testament to the self-revelation of God in Christ.

I disagree. If James Jackson wrote a blurb on the back of Jack Jameson's book, and there were a few quotes in the book from Jackson, it doesn't make the book equivalent to revelation from Joe Jackson.