[FONT="]I think this is great discussion going on here. Thanks for this helpful thread. Keep going.[/FONT]
Upvote
0
Why Is Jesus Called 'The Word' in John 1:1?
- Thread starter Lyssah
- Start date
candle glow
whatever I want to be
Haha hey ebed, are you aware that you posted this sentence BEFORE the other EIGHT paragraphs in your post regarding all the gritty little details of your gambit?
So much for not worth continuing, eh? Or, perhaps what you really meant to say is that you feel like MY point of view is not worth continuing with (even though you refused to answer my question/example about abuses which occur as a result of your doctrine)?
that is consistent with the many times you've dismissed my arguments as pointless (rather than actually dealing with them rationally). It's one of several cheap shots you've taken in this discussion (i.e. to claim the discussion is not worth continuing because of my contributions, but then going on to give more of your own arguments as though the discussion is only worth if if you are the only one allowed to speak on it).
Anyway, my point still goes unchallenged. The "all words in the bible are equal to Jesus' words" doctrine leaves a HUGE gaping whole for abuse by people who use it to argue that David and Solomons teachings (or whomever) about materialism and fighting our enemies cancel Jesus' teachings about forsaking materialism and loving our enemies.
The argument about how if one part is unequal to the others means the whole thing needs to be thrown out is just silly. You don't throw out a good mystery novel halfway through just because the author mixed up a characters name at some point.
A typo or an incorrect date, or even some blatantly missing information, does not invalidate all the details of an an entire autobiography. It's just such a silly argument. If you removed ALL the books of the Bible except the 4 gospels, we would still have the word of God, just like the Bible says of Jesus AND his teachings. Jesus said his teachings are his spirit, and that the job of the holy spirit is to remind us of his teachings.
It is very wrong to neuter Jesus from the holy spirit in the way you do by claiming that his "divinity" is separate from his teachings. The "logos" points towards "rhema" and "rhema" points right back to the "logos".
If fact, the "word of God" title was given to Jesus long before the individual books of the bible were ever put together in the first place.
Can't you see how totally bizarre it is to say that without the book of Job, Jesus' teachings become unreliable?
Upvote
0
This will be my last response on this issue.
What I dismiss as pointless is based on you bringing in something I never said or even hinted at. Be that as it may. We're plainly in disagreement.
I think others will see what I mean. Whether they agree or not, I'm sure they can see that several times you have inferred things I didn't say or mean in any form or fashion.
Not only that simple things that don't matter you throw into the fray. Just like the really idiotic comment about the Book of Job.
Job is part of the scripture because despite the fact that the book is OT, it teaches a very important point that when a believer is going through a trial (as Job was), we're not to jump to conclusions that they committed some sin, and that's why they're going through that trial. That's what Job's friends found out from God. That is still a very valid lesson today.
Every book of the bible is God's word, and valid for history, teaching, prophecy, insight, seeing God's wisdom at work, learning to pray and so much more.
So fort he last time:
ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Jesus as "The Word" (The Logos) has nothing to do with words. It is a title given to Jesus that goes to EVERYTHING that Jesus is.
With that., may God bless and keep you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
candle glow
whatever I want to be
It's very true that you never said your doctrine cannot be abused, or that you even hinted that it could be abused. But that's the point, isn't it? No one goes around bragging about how their doctrine can be abused.
It's the fact that you did NOT saying anything about it, when I challenged you on it, several times, that shows there is a problem, ebed.
I've seen, many times, when people are confronted with the teaching about enemy loving, turn to battles in the OT and say, "see, it's all the word of God so don't tell us about loving our enemies".
They say it's all the word of God, so Jesus' message is overridden by the OT examples of battle.
The same thing happens with materialism. People point to Solomon because he was a very rich man, and they say, "see, it's all the word of God". Jesus' teachings about forsaking all and working for love vs working for money are trampled underfoot in the name of the " it's all the word of God" doctrine.
When it's pointed out to them that Jesus said his WISDOM is greater than that of Solomon's they say, "no, Jesus was talking about his own person as being greater than Solomon, not his message", even though the passage is CLEARLY talking about Solomon's wisdom vs Jesus' wisdom.
So, no, you didn't say what I said, but then again I never said you used my words. I said the doctrine you are defending is wrong because it opens the door to so many abuses . You've still not dealt with that, and I think we both know why.
You should consider that my comment about the book of Job was in direct response to an argument you made, before you call it idiotic (snickers).
But then again, you've completely missed the point. I said IF we took the book of Job out of the collection of books which makes up the Bible as we know it today, we would still have the word of God.
However, you seem to be implying that IF we took the book of Job out, we'd need to throw everything else out, too, as being unreliable because of that missing book. IS that what you are saying, ebed?
You said something similar to that earlier on by suggesting that if Jesus' teachings are greater than Solomon's teachings, then the discrepency would invalidate the intire Bible. Is that what you are saying?
Are you saying we cannot be saved by Jesus' words alone? We cannot be saved without Job's example or Solomons example? Remember, I am not talking about good lessons which can be learned from either man's example. That is not the point.
The point is, do we still have the word of God even if we've only got the four gospels?
Of course we do, but that answer totally destroys your doctrine, doesn't it? But, why should that answer destroy your doctrine? Isn't it because all those other books become incredibly convenient for hiding behind, when you can use them to excuse some particularly difficult teaching from Jesus, on the basis that it's "all the word of God"?
It's obvious.
Upvote
0
Can I try to summarize what I see here?
Jesus is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. He IS the word of God, in every sense. He has been given a Name above every name!
Sounds like the Gospel to me
Jesus is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. He IS the word of God, in every sense. He has been given a Name above every name!
Sounds like the Gospel to me
Upvote
0
candle glow
whatever I want to be
Hi RTD,
You've kinda summarized my position a bit more than Ebed's position. He will say all that same kind of stuff about Jesus being Lord, but he won't give the same prominence to Jesus' teachings.
He promotes something like every word in the Bible carries the same weight. According to his doctrine, even stuff like a listing of genealogies carries the same importance as the MOST important command to Love God. He says it's ALL the word of God.
If you were to tear a page out of Lamentations, or even the whole letter to Philemon, Ebed's doctrine would necessitate throwing that entire Bible out as being incomplete, corrupted, and unreliable.
You've kinda summarized my position a bit more than Ebed's position. He will say all that same kind of stuff about Jesus being Lord, but he won't give the same prominence to Jesus' teachings.
He promotes something like every word in the Bible carries the same weight. According to his doctrine, even stuff like a listing of genealogies carries the same importance as the MOST important command to Love God. He says it's ALL the word of God.
If you were to tear a page out of Lamentations, or even the whole letter to Philemon, Ebed's doctrine would necessitate throwing that entire Bible out as being incomplete, corrupted, and unreliable.
Upvote
0
Can I try to summarize what I see here?
Jesus is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. He IS the word of God, in every sense. He has been given a Name above every name!
Sounds like the Gospel to me
Very true.
The point I make is the title given Jesus as The "Word Of God" (The Logos) is not referring what He said but who He is.
Jesus being called "The Word" (The Logos), as in John 1:1 is not calling him "words". That title is referring to Jesus in His essence.
A way to put it is like Jesus said when He said to the Pharisees "Truly Truly before Abraham was born "I AM"...That is "The Word" as used in John 1:1 and Rev 19:13
Or as Paul says of Jesus in Colossians 1:15-20:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
All of that is Jesus as "The Word" or The Word Of God" (The Logos)
So understand that I'm not diminishing anything Jesus taught or said. I'm making a distinction that goes to the title "The Word" (The Logos).
I offer these links that pretty much explain who Jesus, as The Logos is:
Jesus as Logos, or Cosmic Christ (Part 1) | The Jesus Question
Jesus as Logos, or Cosmic Christ (Part 2) | The Jesus Question
There's a big distinction in "logos" when it was given as a title to Jesus by John in John 1:1 and Rev 19:13.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I would challenge that rhema is not at the word in view all in view in John 1:1.
I have heard it taught in that manner but I believe that it's misapplied. I do know many ascribe to that teaching.
The definition of logos as "expression of thought" is quite correct except for the way John is using it in John 1:1-14. "Logos" used there as a title is quite different as is the application.
Taking Genesis 1:1 "and God said" would be rhema as God spoke those words the Holy Spirit is acting in accord with all God speaks.
There are many that believe logos and rhema are interchangeable but I disagree. That debate has been going a long time too in many circles.
I do appreciate your perspective.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
In that rhema is not the word used to give Jesus the title "The Word"in John 1:1 logos is the word that is used.
Look it up.
As I said some consider rhema and logos interchangeable but they aren't. However that debate continues too.
Upvote
0
candle glow
whatever I want to be
Once again, the argument is totally rediculous. The title of "the word of God" is NOT meant to promote the words Jesus used to teach us? It's just stupid.
OF COURSE that's why he is given the title of "word of God", to point us to his teachings. His words are the words of God.
All this stuff about his "essence" is just smoke screen. Even the demons knew how to refer to Jesus' divinity, but what they would NOT do was obey him.
Jesus said that his words ARE his spirit, his essence. Arguments attempting to separate Jesus' divinity from his teachings totally miss the point and once again only serve as a convenient doctrine.
See, it works like this: People are confronted with a teaching from Jesus which they find uncomfortable, like his teachings on materialism and forsaking it. They know they can't just come right out and say that they will not obey Jesus, because that's too obvious.
So this doctrine was invented separating Jesus' divinity from his teachings, by claiming that all writings in the Bible are equal to Jesus, although Jesus still maintains his title of "word of God".
In this way they can still say "Lord Lord" when it comes to the person of Jesus, while at the same time they can feel justified in ignoring Jesus' teachings on the basis that some OTHER example in the Bible contradicts Jesus. Because they say it's ALL the word of God, they don't view it as a contradiction, but simply choosing one part of "God's word" over another.
Look again at what Ebed is saying; it matches perfectly with the summary I've just given...
It sounds VERY much like what Jesus was getting at when he said:
These people knew enough to refer to Jesus as Lord, but something was still missing. They did not take his teachings seriously. They separated his divinity from his teachings. The "word of God" was merely a title to them which did not cause them to see the significance of Jesus' words.
Faith in grammatical technicalities will not save anyone. Only faith in Jesus' instructions for how we should serve God will save us; that is why he is called the word of God.
Upvote
0
That is not at all what Jesus said, His words are not His Spirit. He said His words "are spirit" meaning His words are for those who believe on Him. They hear Him with spiritual ears.
This is exactly what he said:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. “
No. How it works is as Jesus said in Matt 5:11, where Jesus said "He who has ears to hear". He said that a total of 8 times:
*3 times in Matthew
*3 times in Mark
*2 times in Luke
Now...Jesus explains that in Matt 13:11 for his disciples:
"And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” Jesus answered them, “ To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they would see with their eyes,Hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.’"
Furthermore it's not a sin to acquire material wealth, nor should believers forsake being weathy. It's a sin to TRUST IN MATERIAL WEALTH. As you walk through the scriptures this is evident as many of Gods people were extremely wealthy but did not TRUST in their riches.
It's a matter of perspective. God gave Job back his wealth after all was said and done in his trial, this is how God blessed him in the end:
Job 42:12-17
The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had 14,000 sheep and 6,000 camels and 1,000 yoke of oxen and 1,000 female donkeys. He had seven sons and three daughters. He named the first Jemimah, and the second Keziah, and the third Keren-happuch. In all the land no women were found so fair as Job’s daughters; and their father gave them inheritance among their brothers. After this, Job lived 140 years, and saw his sons and his grandsons, four generations. And Job died, an old man and full of days.
That's quite a bit of wealth in that time!!! You see Job had it all in persepctive...and that was shown in the beginning when God allowed Satan to take all Job had. Job was devastated but this is what he said to his wife who wanted him to curse God:
But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
So contrary to what you assert about wealth...you are incorrect.
Again you assert things I never said. Also grammar does very much matter to properly understand the scriptures because grammar is a means of communicating and wrong grammatical construction can change how something is to be understood. I don't have faith in "grammatical technicalities" as you wrongly assert, but I do understand that not getting grammar correct can lead to error...such as the ones you made.
However I've addressed here exactly what you said, and the error you make in how you're saying it.
I'm done with the logos discussion...but I thought I'd show you how you go about saying things that are NOT at all what I said, as well as where you say things Jesus said but it's wrong. Not that it was intentional...but it's wrong nonetheless.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hi 101c.
Let me simply point out that in John 1:1...John is giving Jesus a title that goes to his identity. He is basically introducing us to God in flesh. This is why when you look up "logos" in resources like Thayer's, or Vines' they separate the definition of "logos" as the title John gives Jesus in John 1:1.
In the title "The WORD" naturally comes the authority of everything Jesus says...why?, because He is God the creator....and this is why John gives an introduction before he says "The WORD" became flesh, he want's us to know This is God coming to you in flesh.
This is Thayer's on "Logos" in John 1:1:
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.
This is Vine's:
(II) "The Personal Word," a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated by the statements of doctrine in Jhn 1:1-18, declaring in verses Jhn 1:1, 2 (1) His distinct and superfinite Personality,
(2) His relation in the Godhead (pros, "with," not mere company, but the most intimate communion),
(3) His deity; in Jhn 1:3 His creative power; in Jhn 1:14 His Incarnation ("became flesh," expressing His voluntary act; not as AV, "was made"), the reality and totality of His human nature, and His glory "as of the only begotten from the Father," RV (marg., "an only begotten from a father"), the absence of the article in each place lending stress to the nature and character of the relationship; His was the Shekinah glory in open manifestation; Jhn 1:18 consummates the identification: "the only-begotten Son (RV marg., many ancient authorities read "God only begotten,"), which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," thus fulfilling the significance of the title "Logos," the "Word," the personal manifestation, not of a part of the Divine nature, but of the whole Deity (see IMAGE). The title is used also in 1Jo 1:1, "the Word of life" combining the two declarations in Jhn 1:1, 4 and Rev 19:13 (for 1Jo 5:7 see THREE).
So I stand on the fact that the title given to Jesus as "The Logos" in John 1:1 is very different from logos as defined in general usage.
Welcome to the discussion.
Let me simply point out that in John 1:1...John is giving Jesus a title that goes to his identity. He is basically introducing us to God in flesh. This is why when you look up "logos" in resources like Thayer's, or Vines' they separate the definition of "logos" as the title John gives Jesus in John 1:1.
In the title "The WORD" naturally comes the authority of everything Jesus says...why?, because He is God the creator....and this is why John gives an introduction before he says "The WORD" became flesh, he want's us to know This is God coming to you in flesh.
This is Thayer's on "Logos" in John 1:1:
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.
This is Vine's:
(II) "The Personal Word," a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated by the statements of doctrine in Jhn 1:1-18, declaring in verses Jhn 1:1, 2 (1) His distinct and superfinite Personality,
(2) His relation in the Godhead (pros, "with," not mere company, but the most intimate communion),
(3) His deity; in Jhn 1:3 His creative power; in Jhn 1:14 His Incarnation ("became flesh," expressing His voluntary act; not as AV, "was made"), the reality and totality of His human nature, and His glory "as of the only begotten from the Father," RV (marg., "an only begotten from a father"), the absence of the article in each place lending stress to the nature and character of the relationship; His was the Shekinah glory in open manifestation; Jhn 1:18 consummates the identification: "the only-begotten Son (RV marg., many ancient authorities read "God only begotten,"), which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," thus fulfilling the significance of the title "Logos," the "Word," the personal manifestation, not of a part of the Divine nature, but of the whole Deity (see IMAGE). The title is used also in 1Jo 1:1, "the Word of life" combining the two declarations in Jhn 1:1, 4 and Rev 19:13 (for 1Jo 5:7 see THREE).
So I stand on the fact that the title given to Jesus as "The Logos" in John 1:1 is very different from logos as defined in general usage.
Welcome to the discussion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bob Carabbio
Old guy -
- Dec 22, 2010
- 2,271
- 568
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
He's NOT called the "Word".
Jesus is the RESULT of the "Word" (who is God, and the Creator) becoming "Flesh", and dwelling among us as a MAN - a "Second Adam", as it were.
Apparently The "Word" remains in "Glorified Human form" as "Jesus" now, and didn't "Revert" to His "Pre-incarnate" form.
Jesus is the RESULT of the "Word" (who is God, and the Creator) becoming "Flesh", and dwelling among us as a MAN - a "Second Adam", as it were.
Apparently The "Word" remains in "Glorified Human form" as "Jesus" now, and didn't "Revert" to His "Pre-incarnate" form.
Upvote
0
Al I can say to that is John 1:1 :
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
candle glow
whatever I want to be
Yes ebed, you have finally addressed one of the points I've asked you to deal with many times now. Thank you.
You've said this several times, but let's examine the evidence. I will use actual quotes from BOTH of us, ebed, to make this point. Look carefully.
For reference sake, here are my words. These are the words which ebed is saying I have falsely accused him of asserting. I said:
Please keep this is mind as you read further to know if I really have falsely accused ebed.
I brought up materialism as an example of how people apply this doctrine, which excuses Jesus' teachings. I said that confronting materialism generally makes people uncomfortable and as a result they feel a need to find some way to excuse the teaching.
Some time people simply claim that Jesus never taught against materialism. But, of course he did. Here are a few teachings from Jesus himself about that issue.
Also:
And:
As well as:
There are MANY such verse all through the NT. Peter, James, John and Matthew are recorded as having forsook their jobs to follow Jesus, because Jesus said "follow me". Later, Luke 18, after confronting the rich man about selling all his possessions and using the money to help the poor, Jesus said it would be very difficult for the rich to enter Heaven (i.e. because they refuse to let go of their riches). Peter then says, referring to all the apostels, "we've left everything to follow you, so what will we get?".
In Acts 2 and 4 we see the disciples selling what they have and sharing all things in common, just like Jesus and his followers did. It later says these are the people who "turned the world upside down". You don't turn the world upside down by making excuses to ignore Jesus' teachings.
Look again at what ebed said about materialism:
So, did he come to this conclusion based on what JEsus actually said? Of course not. Compare the quotes I just gave with what he's said here. The quotes above very clearly show that Ebed's conclusions about material wealth are NOT consistent with what Jesus said.
So, if he's not listening to Jesus, then who IS he listening to? Well, he listening to Job.
This is what he said:
It's a matter of perspective? Okay, so what perspective is Ebed looking from? Is his perspective based on Jesus, the cornerstone? No, look whom he chooses to use to represent his perspective; Job.
Ironically enough, I used Job as an example of this very thing in an earlier post and ebed rebuked me strongly for suggesting that we could take Job out of the Bible and STILL have the word of God, in Jesus' teachings.
Obviously, Job is a very important part of Ebed's perspective, and why is that? It's because:
Job is an example of being wealthy! For someone who feels threatened by teachings against materialism, Job is an extremely important example for them to fall back on.
Solomon is another example commonly used, but I suspect ebed wisely avoided using that example here because I pre-empted him by bringing it up myself several times.
In fact, Jesus was the first to preempt ebed's doctrine by brining up the issue of Solomon first. Jesus said that his widsome is greater than Solomon's wisdom. In other words, don't look to Solomon's example to justify yourself because Jesus' wisdom is better. Solomon won't save us; only Jesus will.
But this is where ebed's doctrine comes in. He says that Jesus' wisdom is NOT better than Solomon's (or Job's). He says Jesus' wisdom is equal to those guys. He says it's ALL the word of God. He implies that they are all the cornerstone.
In that way, he can ignore Jesus' teachings about materialism and it won't seem so bad because hey, "it's all the word of God". It's not wrong to follow a good guy like Job, right? I mean, look at his example. He went through some horrible stuff and God rewarded him. What's so bad about wanting to be rich like Job?
All convenient doctrines have that kind of catch. They all SOUND nice on the outside; it would not be convenient if they didn't sound enticing.
It's why Jesus said "why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me?" Jesus is confronting these convenient doctrines, where people say "Lord you are holy and wonderful" on the outside, while on the inside they turn to Job or Solomon for their examples of how to live.
In conclusion, I've used exact quotes from myself, ebed and Jesus to explain very clearly my reasons for suggesting that ebed is promoting a convenient doctrine which is designed to push Jesus' teachings to the side. In other words, I used actual evidence to support my case, ebed.
I understand very clearly that you've made a strong declaration in previous posts that you will never change your point of view on this issue. That's fine, it's your life. However, if you choose to respond to this post, I do ask that you base your own response on evidence, too, preferrably dealing directly with the evidence I've shown here.
In other words, please don't make me beg you to deal with the issues I raise like I had to with the abuse thing.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
