Open Debate - Deity of Christ (testimony, myth, Messiah, Revelation)

[sciotamicks]

Sciotamick says:

See, this is what we have been saying ALL along. God the Father tabernacled IN the man Jesus. Hense, the anointing, or Christ. He didn't speak only through Jesus, as He did with Elijah, but made His dwelling IN Him. So what are we disagreeing with here, and where is the debate?

I will address these points briefly as it appears it was directed to a misunderstanding in regards to my post countering Katonjj.

I believe the point is missed here entirely. The difference between what those who believe that God is not in the flesh of the man Jesus Christ conveys, and what we who believe convey are as such:

- they believe that Christ was annointed from God in spirit, including his own separate soul in the man.
- we believe that Christ had no other soul other than God, who was in the flesh which is Jesus Christ.

But the Holy One of Israel came FROM Israel. This is supported in scripture. Also, we see Jesus Christ being the CORNERSTONE of the Temple. Well, use logic here. Why would Jesus be the cornerstone for a temple, when the temple is used to house the Glory of God the Father, if in fact, Jesus WERE God the Father, or of another 3=1 substance?

Scripture proclaims that not only Jesus Christ is the cornerstone, but God/Jehovah Himself is, therefore, by eliminating all possibilities, we can infer that Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God, but He is God, in spirit, and flesh as the man Jesus Christ. This was performed by the Holy Spirit at the moment of conception, wherein Mary was not conceived by a human being, but by the spirit of God. Not only Christ was the "tabernacle" of God in the flesh, but God our Lord was also the chief cornerstone in which the Jews stumbled on:

Isa 8:13-14 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and [let] him [be] your fear, and [let] him [be] your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

1 Peter 2:7-8 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Matt 21:42-43 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

What we have witnessed here is an issue of interpretation based on the inability to discern the unthinkable in regards to our own, meager existence, as opposed to God's existsence which stands outside of time, space and matter. What the failure in discerning this quality of God, was not only a stumbling block to the first century Jews, but is in parallel to a stumbling block to that of many in the race of mankind, therein is an attempt to sqeeze the all-encompassing God into a nicely fitted box in order for us to grab hold of and mathematically ascertain His existence.

The beauty of what God had accomplished in this task is not only, first, dying for us a horrible death so that we could finally be free, but secondly, so we could finally take a look upon the sinless face and nature of God, that seemed so far-fetched to many Jews in the past, which in turn is what deemed many to failure of faith, as He was outside of their existence, untouchable and unseeable, in which the covenant they accpeted was misunderstood and purely based on Isreal's fleshly desires to be righteous, when in fact, the law itself, was established so that they would be aware of their depravity, thus in and of itself, and not only the law became a stumbling block and rock of offence, concluding with Jesus Christ being that fulfillment of the law, in turn produced the same effect on those that continued to seek that which is of the flesh.

Only what was sought in the heart, and unadulterated circumcised faith, the very nature in which God sought from the very beginning, that only an elect few understood during the Old Covenant epoch, where only by the release of that bondage, could mankind be of witness to the very human death God would have endure, so that the gates and veil of the temple and tabernacle, could finally be removed, where we could come to Him, void of the flesh, completely justified and sanctified from the single act He had made, perfect and sinless, and bore the sins of mankind on the cross.

I hope this has cleared up the confusion.
If not, those with eyes, let them read, and understand!

Note I don't wish to engage the writer of these statements, as it would be contrary to the task at hand, but I felt it pertinent, to correct this misinterpretation of not only my words, but the Word itself.

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Excellent idea, and I will do the same. God bless and may Christ bless you every day!

Same to you!

There are several places within the scripture wherein the mystery was revealed for us by the 1st Century apostles/disciples concerning His deity. It is also neccessary to note, as I did in the first post, with clarity, that the disciple, expecially here with John, the need for John to stray from the allusion that Christ was in fact separate from God.

What you are saying is that there was a mystery? Perhaps we should expound on the mystery you see because I see that Christ revealed all mysteries of God which is why he is said to be the very image of God.

If John was to allude that Christ was separate from God, he would be guilty of a doctrine that was considered to be heretical in his time.

What doctrine is that? When reading the available historical accounts of the 1st century there is nothing said about an "evil" doctrine. Perhaps you should elaborate on this.

In order for John to steer clear of the heresy of Sabellianism and Arianism, he had to prove that Jesus was in fact God. In this verse:

The terms you use here are from the 3rd and 4th century. How would John have known these "heretical" viewpoints before they were even thought up and named?

In order for you to say that John was avoiding these heresies you would have to establish that he was consciously aware of them or your argument falls flat. You fail to prove that John was trying "to steer clear of" these heresies that didn't arrive until 3 hundred or so years later. I asked you to show me why I should be convince that "the word" should be capitalized and set apart?

Is it: "The Word" of God or "The word of God"

Do you see what I mean? You are treating "the Word" of God differently than you would "the word of God."

We see throughout scripture the phrase "the word of God" is extremely common.

In John 10:35-
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--

The "he" here is David (see Psalm 82) a fact they would all know. In fact many hearing this could recite the whole psalm.

We can establish that all parties there at the time were well aware of the "he" and the whole Psalm in some cases.

David is talking about the prophets. The word of God comes to prophets who proclaim it.

In order to say John means the word is Jesus and Jesus is God you must establish that "the word" is different from "the word of God" as used elsewhere in the bible.

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.

We will analyze the word skēnoō - dwelt

to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle

From the Root skēnos

a tabernacle, a tent
metaphor of the human body, in which the soul dwells as in a tent, and which is taken down at death

Clearly this is alluding to the very nature wherein God dwells in His tabernacle, another distinct reminder in which the human form of Jesus, did God dwell personally in the earthly tabernacle in His son, Jesus. The very nature of God was indeed represented in the man Jesus Christ, but it was more than just a man, with a soul like each and every one of us, but within the man Jesus Christ, was the spirit of God, skēnoō in the flesh of what we know of as Jesus Christ. The human form Jesus Christ was very human, with blood, bones and flesh, but within that human form of Jesus Christ, dwelt the Holy One of Israel, God Jehovah. His spirit was God.

The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of "the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." There is still a meeting place where God meets with man, and holds fellowship with him. That place is the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

The manhood of Christ had become to us, the anti-type of that tent in the center of the camp wherein God ad dwelled. God is in Christ Jesus; Christ Jesus is God; and in His person God dwells in the midst of us as in a tent; for such is the force of the original in our text.

The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled, or tented, among us.

That is to say, in Christ Jesus the Lord dwelt among men, as God of old dwelt in His sanctuary in the midst of the tribes of Israel in the flesh born of the woman Mary, and God humbled in the form of human, to save His people from Sin, to become the ultimate sacrifice.

Again here you are using "the Word" rather than "the word of God" and then you focus on the words dwell, tent.. etc. When you state yourself that God dwells among US.. a plural not just Jesus. This would mean that God enters us as the temple. We are temples of God, right? So what you are saying of Christ is no more than happens with the rest of us. The temple of our body is indwelt by God... right? So what makes Jesus God then?

The Lord God doth dwell among us through the incarnation of His Son.

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that the flesh spoken of is singular but it says very clearly that the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Each of is is that tabernacle as Jesus was.

I ask you to disprove that we are all temples of the Most High and brothers to Jesus.
2 Cor. 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

I assert that the flesh spoken of in John 1 includes all flesh not just one man. The word sarx (σάρξ) is talking about a group of flesh not just one man. It is also translated as mankind.

So if flesh refers to all mankind, this passage cannot be stating that Jesus is God at all, but is sent by God to deliver and spread the word of God which is more logical considering it seems to be the introduction to the rest of the book!

[SisterKat]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

Same to you!

I ask you to disprove that we are all temples of the Most High and brothers to Jesus.
2 Cor. 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

I assert that the flesh spoken of in John 1 includes all flesh not just one man. The word sarx (σάρξ) is talking about a group of flesh not just one man. It is also translated as mankind.

So if flesh refers to all mankind, this passage cannot be stating that Jesus is God at all, but is sent by God to deliver and spread the word of God which is more logical considering it seems to be the introduction to the rest of the book!

Exactly: The bible calls Jesus the Word (John 1). He preached the word of God. He was the word of God. God created everything.

[sciotamicks]

Bless you in Jesus Christ!

Originally Posted by katjonjj

What you are saying is that there was a mystery? Perhaps we should expound on the mystery you see because I see that Christ revealed all mysteries of God which is why he is said to be the very image of God.

The marriage...Rev 10 - Corporate Body unification

What doctrine is that? When reading the available historical accounts of the 1st century there is nothing said about an "evil" doctrine. Perhaps you should elaborate on this.

The terms you use here are from the 3rd and 4th century. How would John have known these "heretical" viewpoints before they were even thought up and named?

In order for you to say that John was avoiding these heresies you would have to establish that he was consciously aware of them or your argument falls flat. You fail to prove that John was trying "to steer clear of" these heresies that didn't arrive until 3 hundred or so years later.

I grouped thses three paragraphs, as they are all involved with each other and can be countered in the same breath.

Arianism and Sabellianism are indeed terms that came about in the 3rd and 4th centuries, but their doctrine is as ancient as the scripture itself. When I was referring to these two doctrines, I never stated that they were termed this at that very time in which the gospel was written, but that the very doctrines were present during John's time while he was writing it.

Sabellianism - as defined is God is One, but not a plurality of three persons, and that the one God is Jesus Christ. In other words, God is absolutely one with no distinction of persons (Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20) because Jesus Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead incarnate (John 20:28; Colossians 2:9). The Father, the Son (Word) and the Holy Spirit are only three manifestations or modes or titles that Jesus manifests Himself as. I have read elsewhere that Oneness believers do not believe God is limited to these three manifestaions.

Arian argument #1:
Since Christ did not know the time of his return, he lacked the divine attribute of omniscience.

The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation does not mean any change in the deity, but the taking up of the truly human son of Mary into personal union with the true God. The church says with Scripture that Christ saw with human eyes, heard with human ears, and could otherwise learn with a human brain some of what he already knew as God without using the human nature. Of course he did not know by use of his human faculties the date of his return! That has nothing to do with what he knew as God, though he usually concealed his omniscience in his humiliation. No contradiction can be found in that, though there is certainly much beyond human understanding.

Arian argument #2:
Since the unbelief of others sometimes prevented Christ from healing, he lacked the divine attribute of omnipotence.

While in the state of humiliation, the Son of God often "veiled in flesh" his omnipotence as well as his omniscience, without any loss of those attributes. At the same time, he did everything his Father did (John 5:19). It follows that either the Son was omnipotent and omniscient, or omnipotence and omniscience are not required to do whatever the Father does.

Arian argument #3:
Since Christ performed his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, those miracles did not manifest the divine nature of Christ. Scripture, followed by the Roman, Lutheran, and Calvinistic churches, teaches that that Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father: Christ sends the Spirit, and Paul sometimes called him "the Spirit of Christ." So when Christ healed by the Spirit’s power, he did so as one from whom the Spirit proceeds, not at all as an apostle or other mere man who could heal only in the name of the Son. Thus, the Spirit revealed Christ’s divine nature by working through his human voice and touch without changing his human nature.
For example, the synoptics say his healing by word proved he had the power to forgive sins by word, yet another attribute of God he did not lay aside in the incarnation.

In conclusion, Arian and Sabellianism arguments come not from exegesis of Scripture, but from relying on human inferences from passages teaching Christ’s true humanity even when such inferences directly conflict with Scripture teaching his full deity. This doctrines were ever so present in the first century, as Paul fought hard against, due to their influence infiltrating the very churches he had established. Docetic tendencies have the same root, except in reverse. Is it really reasonable to expect human reason to grasp the mystery of the incarnation to the point of explaining all of its apparent contradictions? Both Docetists and Arians seem to think so. To defend their positions, they oppose the plain meaning of contrary Scripture passages either by the ancient tactic of arbitrarily reading them figuratively or by the modern tactic of openly denying their authority.

I asked you to show me why I should be convince that "the word" should be capitalized and set apart?

I still don't undestand the validity of this to the debate. I capitalize it because it is God, since He was the Word. But if you do not want to, that is fine, I won't be offended as it is your belief. My aim is not to convince you in this matter, as I feel it does not peratin to the debate in any way, shape or form.

Is it: "The Word" of God or "The word of God"

What does the text say?

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος - God was the Word.

Do you see what I mean? You are treating "the Word" of God differently than you would "the word of God."

We see throughout scripture the phrase "the word of God" is extremely common.

In John 10:35-
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--

The "he" here is David (see Psalm 82) a fact they would all know. In fact many hearing this could recite the whole psalm.

We can establish that all parties there at the time were well aware of the "he" and the whole Psalm in some cases.

David is talking about the prophets. The word of God comes to prophets who proclaim it.

In order to say John means the word is Jesus and Jesus is God you must establish that "the word" is different from "the word of God" as used elsewhere in the bible.

I already established this in the opening statement, but you must properly counter this statement for it to have any validity to the argument. Saying what you think without proper counter, renders your argument moot. Address the text here in the beginning of the prologue:

John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue and discourse in its entirety, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word ἦν. It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Therefore, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He, God, Christ, predates that beginning.

Again here you are using "the Word" rather than "the word of God" and then you focus on the words dwell, tent.. etc. When you state yourself that God dwells among US.. a plural not just Jesus. This would mean that God enters us as the temple. We are temples of God, right? So what you are saying of Christ is no more than happens with the rest of us. The temple of our body is indwelt by God... right? So what makes Jesus God then?

Again, this argument you present is without proper analyzation of the text in question, and this conclusion is based on zero exegesis and is pure assumption. First you must counter the text I present, and we can move on. You first have to prove, that the WORD was not established in the beginning, as the text clearly sates, which in turn lays the groundwork for John's prologue concerinig the very nature of the "Word" and not what you have decided to present in contrast to its nature, taken out of context, and imposed elsewhere in the scripture to support the paradigm you present. What has been presented to me, here, is not only a serious error, but contradictory to the entire prologue, straying with the very first word.

What you need to do Kat, is prove that John did NOT mean the Word was in the beginning. Then we can move on, otherwise, this arguement you present regarding the nature of the Word itself, is renedered defeated.

I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that the flesh spoken of is singular but it says very clearly that the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

I don't follow your argument here. First you must establish that the Word is NOT God, and was not In The Beginning.

The Flesh - sarx - being a feminine noun - ONLY denotes a body, nature of a man, and in context with the prologue, wherein the Word became Flesh, a body, and that Word was from the Beginning which was God.

Each of us is that tabernacle as Jesus was.

We are a part of the entire body of Christ, hence the opening statement of this post regarding the mystery and marriage of the lamb and His church - Rev 10, 19 and 21, and because of Christ, God now, tabernacles in us, however, Paul was very clear about the two different bodies in which man had obatined prior to and after Christ.

The reader must remember, that Christ was the firstfruit, the first tabernacle, wherein God had dwelled and died, tearing the veil - Matt 27:50,51 - giving up the Holy Ghost that was in Him - the text in Matthew 27 at His cruxifiction, speaks of no other SOUL that left Christ, but that of ONLY the Holy Ghost which had first conceived Him in Mary's womb.

John 16:8 And when He is come He will reprove the world of sin.

One of the main missions of the Holy Ghost is to reprove the world of sin.
The Holy Ghost reproved some of the sin in the Old Testament times, but in His own dispensation He reprove ALL sin, John 16:8.

In the Old Testament the Holy Ghost moved UPON certain vessels, on certain occasions; God used the best material He had. They were moved UPON the holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Peter 1:21.

But in the New testament times the manifestation of the Spirit is given to EVERYONE. Now the Holy Ghost dwells within us at all times, John 14:17.

Since we are baptized with the Holy Ghost He moves WITHIN US, John 7:38-39, instead of moving UPON us at times, Judges 13:25. In the Old Testament they RESPONDED TO THE Holy Ghost, but we have RECEIVED THE Holy Ghost. God moved upon a nation, having laws written on tablets of stone; but now He commandeth all men everywhere to repent - Acts 17:30, writing the laws in fleshly tablets of our hearts, 2 Cor. 3:3 - our conscience bearing us witness by the Holy Ghost, Romans 2:15; 9:1.

Then, the Holy Ghost dwelt mainly with a nation; now the grace of God that brought salvation has appeared to ALL men, Titus 2:11 through the death of Jesus Christ.

We have one government; but there are three parts to it. We have one God with three personalities. The Holy Ghost as a prosecuting attorney comes and tells us we have broken God’s laws. He arrests us and takes us before the Father, who is the judge of all the earth, who will do right, Gen. 18:25.

2 Cor. 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

Because of God, our Savior, came in the flesh, and sacrificied Himself for us, we know, can partake in the New Jerusalem, wherein God dwells with each and every one of us, in our hearts. In order to have temples as in us, their must be the first temple, the first tabernacle, the chief cornerstone, the rock of offence, where John explicitly states, that the Word was in the Beginning, and the Word was God, and the Word became the flesh, concluding that God, who was in the beginning, it is Him, became flesh, the first tabernacle for us, wherein no veil could separate us, who tore the partition between all people.

I assert that the flesh spoken of in John 1 includes all flesh not just one man. The word sarx (σάρξ) is talking about a group of flesh not just one man. It is also translated as mankind. So if flesh refers to all mankind, this passage cannot be stating that Jesus is God at all, but is sent by God to deliver and spread the word of God which is more logical considering it seems to be the introduction to the rest of the book!

Explain. But first you must explain what the Word was, and how it doesn't relate to "In the Beginning and that it was God".

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Bless you in Jesus Christ!



The marriage...Rev 10 - Corporate Body unification

I think I will reserve this topic for later if you chose to bring it up. I wanna skip to the rest of your post.. ok?

I grouped thses three paragraphs, as they are all involved with each other and can be countered in the same breath.

Arianism and Sabellianism are indeed terms that came about in the 3rd and 4th centuries, but their doctrine is as ancient as the scripture itself. When I was referring to these two doctrines, I never stated that they were termed this at that very time in which the gospel was written, but that the very doctrines were present during John's time while he was writing it.

Sabellianism - as defined is God is One, but not a plurality of three persons, and that the one God is Jesus Christ. In other words, God is absolutely one with no distinction of persons (Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20) because Jesus Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead incarnate (John 20:28; Colossians 2:9). The Father, the Son (Word) and the Holy Spirit are only three manifestations or modes or titles that Jesus manifests Himself as. I have read elsewhere that Oneness believers do not believe God is limited to these three manifestaions.

Arian argument #1:
Since Christ did not know the time of his return, he lacked the divine
attribute of omniscience.

The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation does not mean any change in the deity, but the taking up of the truly human son of Mary into personal union with the true God. The church says with Scripture that Christ saw with human eyes, heard with human ears, and could otherwise learn with a human brain some of what he already knew as God without using the human nature. Of course he did not know by use of his human faculties the date of his return! That has nothing to do with what he knew as God, though he usually concealed his omniscience in his humiliation. No contradiction can be found in that, though there is certainly much beyond human understanding.

Arian argument #2:
Since the unbelief of others sometimes prevented Christ from healing,
he lacked the divine attribute of omnipotence.

While in the state of humiliation, the Son of God often "veiled in flesh" his omnipotence as well as his omniscience, without any loss of those attributes. At the same time, he did everything his Father did (John 5:19). It follows that either the Son was omnipotent and omniscient, or omnipotence and omniscience are not required to do whatever the Father does.

Arian argument #3:
Since Christ performed his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, those miracles did not manifest the divine nature of Christ. Scripture, followed by the Roman, Lutheran, and Calvinistic churches, teaches that that Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father: Christ sends the Spirit, and Paul sometimes called him "the Spirit of Christ." So when Christ healed by the Spirit’s power, he did so as one from whom the Spirit proceeds, not at all as an apostle or other mere man who could heal only in the name of the Son. Thus, the Spirit revealed Christ’s divine nature by working through his human voice and touch without changing his human nature.
For example, the synoptics say his healing by word proved he had the power to forgive sins by word, yet another attribute of God he did not lay aside in the incarnation.

In conclusion, Arian and Sabellianism arguments come not from exegesis of Scripture, but from relying on human inferences from passages teaching Christ’s true humanity even when such inferences directly conflict with Scripture teaching his full deity. This doctrines were ver so present in the first century as Paul fought hard against due to their influence infiltrating the very churches he had established. Docetic tendencies have the same root, except in reverse. Is it really reasonable to expect human reason to grasp the mystery of the incarnation to the point of explaining all of its apparent contradictions? Both Docetists and Arians seem to think so. To defend their positions, they oppose the plain meaning of contrary Scripture passages either by the ancient tactic of arbitrarily reading them figuratively or by the modern tactic of openly denying their authority.

You stated that John was influenced by others by not accepting the "heresies." Then you list the heresies... Ok but even more basic to that is when was the book of John written? There is some debate about that but I think you and I can agree that it was before the destruction of Jerusalem, right? Probably 50-60 AD. So you are saying these heresies were of concern in John's discourse?

I don't see that. John is clearly establishing the main focus of his book, the life and gospel of Jesus Christ in an instructional and informative manner yet poetic or passionate at the same time.

So did John intend to disprove certain heresies that abounded at that time? I don't see that you have shown proof that those heresies abounded at all. You may say they do but I don't see your proof.

If John did not intend to disprove certain heresies that abounded. Nothing in the book of John would suggest that. So if you take the purpose of the whole book of John:
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

This goes directly back to your interpretation of "the Word" as a being as if it has a personality. Are you saying that The Word is called "he" in the original Greek?

Do you believe the Word is a being?

I still don't undestand the validity of this to the debate. I capitalize it because it is God, since He was the Word. But if you do not want to, that is fine, I won't be offended as it is your belief. I don't wish to convince in this matter, as I feel it does not peratin to the debate in any way, shape or form.

It does have everything to do with it.

For example, when I read the bible and see "the word of God" I think of the logos or spoken word of God, an intangible thought straight from God... Not a person separate from God.

You seem to think of the Word as a person separate from God. In fact, your who argument seems to hinge on the fact that the word is one single entity as God in human form as Christ. What happens if the word is a simple description of an intangible thought straight from God? Did Jesus hear and obey the word of God?

Deut. 30:11-14
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

John 14:24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

If Jesus' words were not his own but God's then how do you say he is God?

Jesus spoke the word of God as is clearly stated in the very same book you seem to think states that Jesus is God.

How do you rectify John 14:24 with your belief?

What does the text say?

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος - God was the Word.

I already established this in the opening statement, but you must properly counter this statement for it to have any validity to the argument. Saying what you think without proper counter, renders your argument moot. Address the text here in the beginning of the prologue:

John's first assertion is that "In the beginning was the Word." Which beginning? Considering the whole context of the prologue and discourse in its entirety, many have identified this beginning as the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

But most see that the assertion of the Apostle goes far beyond that.

The key element in understanding this, the first phrase of this verse, is the form of the word "was," which in the Greek language in which John was writing, is the word ἦν. It is a timeless word - that is, it simply points to existence before the present time without reference to a point of origin. One can push back the "beginning" as far as you can imagine, and, according to John, the Word still is. Therefore, the Word is eternal, timeless. The Word is not a creation that came into existence at "the beginning," for He, God, Christ, predates that beginning.

I told you already that I don't despute that the word of God has been around since God has been around because they are the same entity. God's word is God. I agree with that. No need to argue. We agree.

What I disagree with is that the word is a character in the bible.

Again, this argument you present is without proper analyzation of the text in question, and this conclusion is based on zero exegesis and is pure assumption. First you must counter the text I present, and we can move on. You first have to prove, that the WORD was not established in the beginning, as the text clearly sates, which in turn lays the groundwork for John's prologue concerinig the very nature of the "Word" and not what you have decided to present in contrast to its nature, taken out of context, and imposed elsewhere in the scripture to support the paradigm you present. What has been presented to me, here, is not only a serious error, but contradictory to the entire prologue, straying with the very first word.

What you need to do Kat, is prove that John did NOT mean the Word was in the beginning. Then we can move on, otherwise, this arguement you present regarding the nature of the Word itself, is renedered defeated.

AGAIN I already conceded that the word of God is God and therefore has been around since God. This is not the argument. I want to delve deeper into the issue that you have in deifying "The Word" rather than thinking of it as an extension of God not at all separate from him nor did he take on human form exclusive to Jesus as all flesh was affected and all flesh are temples to the living God (or can be).

I don't follow your argument here. First you must establish that the Word is NOT God, and was not In The Beginning.

No I certainly don't have to disagree with that. I believe that the word of God is most certainly God... feels like I have written this before ...

The Flesh - sarx - being a feminine noun - ONLY denotes a body, nature of a man, and in context with the prologue, wherein the Word became Flesh, a body, and that Word was from the Beginning which was God.

Then you agree that it does not necessarily denote a single person but could in fact, mean mankind. That the word dwelt in ALL flesh as one singular group... right?

We are a part of the entire body of Christ, hence the opening statement of this post regarding the mystery and marriage of the lamb and His church - Rev 10, 19 and 21, and because of Christ, God now, tabernacles in us, however, Paul was very clear about the two different bodies in which man had obatined prior to and after Christ.

The reader must remember, that Christ was the firstfruit, the first tabernacle, wherein God had dwelled and died, tearing the veil - Matt 27:50,51 - giving up the Holy Ghost that was in Him - the text in Matthew 27 at His cruxifiction, speaks of no other SOUL that left Christ, but that of ONLY the Holy Ghost which had first conceived Him in Mary's womb.

John 16:8 And when He is come He will reprove the world of sin.

One of the main missions of the Holy Ghost is to reprove the world of sin.
The Holy Ghost reproved some of the sin in the Old Testament times, but in His own dispensation He reprove ALL sin, John 16:8.

In the Old Testament the Holy Ghost moved UPON certain vessels, on certain occasions; God used the best material He had. They were moved UPON the holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Peter 1:21.

But in the New testament times the manifestation of the Spirit is given to EVERYONE. Now the Holy Ghost dwells within us at all times, John 14:17.

Since we are baptized with the Holy Ghost He moves WITHIN US, John 7:38-39, instead of moving UPON us at times, Judges 13:25. In the Old Testament they RESPONDED TO THE Holy Ghost, but we have RECEIVED THE Holy Ghost. God moved upon a nation, having laws written on tablets of stone; but now He commandeth all men everywhere to repent - Acts 17:30, writing the laws in fleshly tablets of our hearts, 2 Cor. 3:3 - our conscience bearing us witness by the Holy Ghost, Romans 2:15; 9:1.

Then, the Holy Ghost dwelt mainly with a nation; now the grace of God that brought salvation has appeared to ALL men, Titus 2:11 through the death of Jesus Christ.

I have no idea where you are going with this. Can we first prove that the word is a person and not just a thought or idea without substance? That would be most helpful to the debate in my opinion. I prefer to streamline the argument so that each point we agree or agree to disagree on whatever the case may be. So please make note that I agree that the word of God is definitely God and was/is from the beginning.

We have one government; but there are three parts to it. We have one God with three personalities. The Holy Ghost as a prosecuting attorney comes and tells us we have broken God’s laws. He arrests us and takes us before the Father, who is the judge of all the earth, who will do right, Gen. 18:25.

You may have a God with three heads but I do not. My God has one substance, spirit.

What does Gen. 18:25 have to do with the argument or proving the multi-personalies of God?

Because of God, our Savior, came in the flesh, and sacrificied Himself for us, we know, can partake in the New Jerusalem, wherein God dwells with each and every one of us, in our hearts. In order to have temples as in us, their must be the first temple, the first tabernacle, the chief cornerstone, the rock of offence, where John explicitly states, that the Word was in the Beginning, and the Word was God, and the Word became the flesh, concluding that God, who was in the beginning, it is Him, became flesh, the first tabernacle for us, wherein no veil could separate us, who tore the partition between all people.

In other words... God sacrificed himself to appease himself to save humans from wrath the deserved because he could not provide their salvation any other way... I understand.

Here is my version... God sent his son, Jesus to provide a message of the grace of God. That God is love. In the process of giving his message, Jesus was accused of being a false prophet and the plotted against him. He knew that would happen because he was filled with the spirit of God. Then he was killed by the very people he loved enough to die to show their error.. Father forgive them.. Jesus was as human as we are:

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

Jesus being human giving his life in order to show God's love to the world is a little less schizophrenic.

Explain. But first you must explain what the Word was, and how it doesn't relate to "In the Beginning and that it was God".

The word of God is just what it states. A thought or idea, instruction, the spoken word...

God spoke the word into existence.

Gen. 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Here we can see the word dabar as word. Dabar being the Hebrew equivalent to logos and it is also referred to as the breath of his mouth. This is fully God, I agree... not a personality or entity but Gods literal words, thoughts, ideas, principals...

How then do you make the word of God into some apparition?

[sciotamicks]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

I think I will reserve this topic for later if you chose to bring it up. I wanna skip to the rest of your post.. ok?

No problem, as this is an enitrely different matter in and of itself, which was consummated at the cross, wherein we were justified, and thus "fully justified" in 70 AD with the realization of the New Covenant being establihed in the marraige between His church and the Lamb. That we both agree as being preterists, the need to expound on this would be like preaching to the choir, together

You stated that John was influenced by others by not accepting the "heresies." Then you list the heresies... Ok but even more basic to that is when was the book of John written? There is some debate about that but I think you and I can agree that it was before the destruction of Jerusalem, right? Probably 50-60 AD. So you are saying these heresies were of concern in John's discourse?

So did John intend to disprove certain heresies that abounded at that time? I don't see that you have shown proof that those heresies abounded at all. You may say they do but I don't see your proof.

Yes we agree on the written date, which at that time, most notably in Paul epistles we see the errors culmintaing within the church. Gnosticism involves all kinds of errors, including soteriological ones, and it introduced the problem of Christological error into the church as early as the first churches in Asia were being established. The epistles of John and Paul are written chiefly to answer incipient forms of Gnosticism, where Arianism and Sabellianism (Judaizer Christians) had been rooted, and the apostle John attacked the error primarily on Christological grounds

If John did not intend to disprove certain heresies that abounded. Nothing in the book of John would suggest that. So if you take the purpose of the whole book of John:
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

Since John had written around the 50-60's, it is very pertinent for you and I to understand that he was addressing the very heresies that were abound at the time, while documenting the Christ life.
Audience relelavance.

This goes directly back to your interpretation of "the Word" as a being as if it has a personality. Are you saying that The Word is called "he" in the original Greek?

Do you believe the Word is a being?
For example, when I read the bible and see "the word of God" I think of the logos or spoken word of God, an intangible thought straight from God... Not a person separate from God.

No, it is not a separate being, but the Word is God. This it appears you agree with me, so where is the debate? The Word was God, and the Word/God became flesh. I am at a loss with the logic preseneted.

Here we can see the word dabar as word. Dabar being the Hebrew equivalent to logos and it is also referred to as the breath of his mouth. This is fully God, I agree... not a personality or entity but Gods literal words, thoughts, ideas, principals...

It appears that you have contradicted the view you are presenting here. Above you are stating that the Word is fully God, but in return you have stated that it is a thought, words, principles that flow out from God in the scripture you have provided. Either it is God or it is from God. John explicitly states that the Word was God, therefore it is God Himself.

How do you rectify John 14:24 with your belief?

Easily. Jesus Christ Himself claimed deity. He taught His disciples to pray in His name - John 16:23-24 - He claimed that He and the Father were one and that He was the Son of God - John 10:30, 36; 14:9; 17:11 -
He claimed that to know Him was to know God, to see Him was to see God, to receive Him was to receive God, to believe Him was to believe in God and to honor Him was to honor God, while to hate Him was to hate God - John 8:18; 14:7; John 12:45; 14:9; Mark 9:37; John 12:44; 14:1; John 5:23; John 15:23

I told you already that I don't despute that the word of God has been around since God has been around because they are the same entity. God's word is God. I agree with that. No need to argue. We agree.

That's wonderful as I said earlier, now what you must decide is how God, being the Word itself, γίνομαι ginomai - became flesh.
Getting around this seems to be quite difficult for those that agree that the Word is God, yet do not believe that God became flesh, as the text clearly states.

What I disagree with is that the word is a character in the bible.

What are you defining as a "character"?
Christ is a character?
John 1 establishes that He is more than a character, but the Word, God, becoming flesh...this is what Christ is, and was from the beginning.

This is not the argument. I want to delve deeper into the issue that you have in deifying "The Word" rather than thinking of it as an extension of God not at all separate from him nor did he take on human form exclusive to Jesus as all flesh was affected and all flesh are temples to the living God (or can be).

There is no need to go any further on the definiton of the Word...it was God, that which is the Word = God = γίνομαι ginomai flesh = Jesus

Then you agree that it does not necessarily denote a single person but could in fact, mean mankind. That the word dwelt in ALL flesh as one singular group... right?

It depends on the subject and context, and the subject and context here, is the Word, which is God, that γίνομαι ginomai flesh, which is Jesus.

In other words... God sacrificed himself to appease himself to save humans from wrath they deserved because he could not provide their salvation any other way... I understand.

Yes! Since you understand, why are we debating? ..just kidding

Here is my version... God sent his son, Jesus to provide a message of the grace of God. That God is love. In the process of giving his message, Jesus was accused of being a false prophet and the plotted against him. He knew that would happen because he was filled with the spirit of God. Then he was killed by the very people he loved enough to die to show their error.. Father forgive them.. Jesus was as human as we are:

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin

Let's reconsider with added empasis mine:

Here is my version... God sent his son, Jesus to provide a message of the grace of God. That God is love. In the process of giving his message, Jesus was accused of being a false prophet and the plotted against him. He knew that would happen because he was filled with the spirit of God. Then he was killed by the very people he loved enough to die to show their error.. Father forgive them.. Jesus was as human as we are, and He was fully God as God was

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin...the very reason why He was fully God, as mankind, in Christ, can NEVER be sinless.

Jesus being human, giving his life in order to show God's love to the world is a little less schizophrenic.

Schizophrenic is man's ailment, not God, for He is perfect and devoid of such ailments. What He did, is beyond our abilities.

Jesus being God, who had humbled Himself and became human, giving his life in order to show God's love to the world.

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

No problem, as this is an enitrely different matter in and of itself, which was consummated at the cross, wherein we were justified, and thus "fully justified" in 70 AD with the realization of the New Covenant being establihed in the marraige between His church and the Lamb. That we both agree as being preterists, the need to expound on this would be like preaching to the choir, together

Amen to that!

Yes we agree on the written date, which at that time, most notably in Paul epistles we see the errors culmintaing within the church. Gnosticism involves all kinds of errors, including soteriological ones, and it introduced the problem of Christological error into the church as early as the first churches in Asia were being established. The epistles of John and Paul are written chiefly to answer incipient forms of Gnosticism, where Arianism and Sabellianism (Judaizer Christians) had been rooted, and the apostle John attacked the error primarily on Christological grounds

Good.. we agree again!

Show proof of this though. Is this your supposition or is it historical fact? I hear of antichrists in the world at that time but nowhere do I see their false doctrine outlined. Show me where you find these historical facts. Please.

Since John had written around the 50-60's, it is very pertinent for you and I to understand that he was addressing the very heresies that were abound at the time, while documenting the Christ life.
Audience relelavance.

And the audience relevance for John is Gentile Christians it seems. Do you disagree with that?

The Gentile Christians at that time would have come from Greek or Roman religious influences wouldn't you say? Then what you propose, the trinity, is closer to their religions at that time than a monotheistic religion such as the Jews had. I don't see what the audience relevance does for your case.

No, it is not a separate being, but the Word is God. This it appears you agree with me, so where is the debate? The Word was God, and the Word/God became flesh. I am at a loss with the logic preseneted.

The word became flesh in all cases not just Jesus'. That is the difference. God's word inhabited every body that would accept it during this transition period. You should know that if the flesh is the temple of the Holy Spirit (God's holy spirit) then there is nothing different about Jesus being the word became flesh or the apostles through which the word spread when Jesus was not on earth.

So to me there is no basis for your assumption that Jesus is God.

It appears that you have contradicted the view you are presenting here. Above you are stating that the Word is fully God, but in return you have stated that it is a thought, words, principles that flow out from God in the scripture you have provided. Either it is God or it is from God. John explicitly states that the Word was God, therefore it is God Himself.

I don't know why you are complicating this. The word of God is the same concept as the word of katjonjj. My word is my idea, my thought, my principles.. my word. God's word is the same thing. It is not a being that is Christ as God. It is the words of God. I don't see why it is so hard for you to see how you give personal characteristics to the Word of God when it is just like any other word... a form of communication. Jesus stated time and again that his words were not his but the Father's...

Easily. Jesus Christ Himself claimed deity. He taught His disciples to pray in His name - John 16:23-24 - He claimed that He and the Father were one and that He was the Son of God - John 10:30, 36; 14:9; 17:11 -
He claimed that to know Him was to know God, to see Him was to see God, to receive Him was to receive God, to believe Him was to believe in God and to honor Him was to honor God, while to hate Him was to hate God - John 8:18; 14:7; John 12:45; 14:9; Mark 9:37; John 12:44; 14:1; John 5:23; John 15:23

If you saw all these passages in a regular old book you may not think as you do. It seems that your mind is clouded with the trinity doctrine and you cannot process verses outside of the light of it. I cannot argue what you will not receive.

That's wonderful as I said earlier, now what you must decide is how God, being the Word itself, γίνομαι ginomai - became flesh.
Getting around this seems to be quite difficult for those that agree that the Word is God, yet do not believe that God became flesh, as the text clearly states.

If we were in the 1st century I could say that the writers words became flesh when someone recites it to me. Of course we don't talk like that now but do you see the point? I like to keep it simple. If you have to attend 16 hours classes before you can understand the gospel perhaps you have overcomplicated it.

What are you defining as a "character"?
Christ is a character?
John 1 establishes that He is more than a character, but the Word, God, becoming flesh...this is what Christ is, and was from the beginning.

So here you are actually unconsciously or consciously replacing the word with Christ, when the text actually states flesh not Christ. I don't understand where you made such a connection.

There is no need to go any further on the definiton of the Word...it was God, that which is the Word = God = γίνομαι ginomai flesh = Jesus

Flesh=Jesus? Where do you get that it is exclusive to Jesus? No where in that passage is it stated that Jesus is the only one who fits that description. What about the disciples that spread the word of God after Jesus left the earth? They then carried the teachings of Christ and thus the word of God ... didn't they? I don't see why you think the word of God has anymore meaning that the word of katjonjj (other than I am not a god lol) because the word of anyone is their thought, pact, speech.. etc. not their essence or being.

It depends on the subject and context, and the subject and context here, is the Word, which is God, that γίνομαι ginomai flesh, which is Jesus.

Please show me what excludes all other flesh from that verse? is there no other instance where the word of God became flesh?

Acts 2:17 "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams."

The pouring out of the spirit of God is when the word lives within them. God dwells in his temple on earth in the bodies of men. Would you disagree with that?

Yes! Since you understand, why are we debating? ..just kidding

Let's reconsider with added empasis mine:

Here is my version... God sent his son, Jesus to provide a message of the grace of God. That God is love. In the process of giving his message, Jesus was accused of being a false prophet and the plotted against him. He knew that would happen because he was filled with the spirit of God. Then he was killed by the very people he loved enough to die to show their error.. Father forgive them.. Jesus was as human as we are, and He was fully God as God was

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin...the very reason why He was fully God, as mankind, in Christ, can NEVER be sinless.

I don't know if it is just me or what but I actually think that if someone gives up his will and takes on God's will he can live a sinless life. Maybe I am naive but I truly believe this.

You state that Jesus was sinless because he was God but why then do you seem to think that God could be tempted as we are? There is no way, God cannot be tempted.. I doubt I even need to show you the verses that state that right?

Schizophrenic is man's ailment, not God, for He is perfect and devoid of such ailments. What He did, is beyond our abilities.

Jesus being God, who had humbled Himself and became human, giving his life in order to show God's love to the world.

Jesus being perfectly human humbled himself and was killed as a sinner to show his love and God's love for the message he brought to the people.

Then who did the task of spreading the word of God fall to?

[sciotamicks]

Originally Posted by katjonjj

And the audience relevance for John is Gentile Christians it seems. Do you disagree with that?

Not neccessarily. The audience of John's gospel was to the whole world, the very reason why he was expressing such care with describing how God becoming flesh in the form of Logos, wherein he was not creating another God out of the One True God of Israel, or the Invisible, Unseen God of the pagan world. Matthew was written to Jews, Mark to Romans, Luke to Gentiles and John to the world, Jew and Gentile.

John's use of Logos would not be understood by Jews in regards to the Origen of the "Word", whereas his book would mainly be familiar to someone practiced in the pagan mystery cults that flourished in the Hellenistic world. Heraclitus of Ephesus used the word Logos around 500 BCE to describe his concept of the regularity with which the universe seemed to operate. The universe was a divine machine and Heraclitus credited the Logos (literally the reason) as the ultimate rationale which secretly operated the universe and the heavens above, hence John's exemplary use of the "Word" to be beyond the time, space contiuum. Although Jews would indeed understand the concept of "Word" as you present it, but it was obvious, that John was very educated in Hellenistic philosophy, and rightfully attribute Logos and its orgen to be from the very beginning of not mankind, but the entire universe.

The Logos was often ill-defined, but was responsible for keeping the ratio of all things in proportion, much like the balance of Eastern yin (dark) and yang (light). The cult of Hermes made use of this to describe their Hermetic corpus written about in the Poimandres:

The [Poimandres] writer fell into a deep and heavy trance, in which there appeared to him a being who introduced himself as Poimandres (Shepherd of Men), "the Mind of Authority." Poimandres then shows the mystic a vision, in which he sees a great light and a great darkness, respectively reality and matter. From the light comes "a Holy Logos," ...the "shining Son of God," who proceeds from Mind itself.

Philo's Word was extremely popular among Jews and non-Jews alike, successfully splitting God into multiple personifications that pagan worshippers would later refine further from Bi- to Trinitarian concepts that we are familiar with today. We first see the application of the philosophy of the Logos in the prologue of the Gospel of John which begins by proclaiming Philo's triumph:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .... The same was in the beginning with God ... 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 [God]." (John 1:1-14)

John's gospel is distinct from the Synoptic Tradition because of the nature of the transformation of Jesus. The shift takes us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people's messiah, to a Wisdom, that pervades all things and all people. The Word that has existed from the beginning, and while the Word came and dwelt among men, "they knew him not." (1:12) John has promulgated the Logos in a radically new way. Suddenly, man is not only capable, but deserved from the beginning of time, to accept the Logos, the Word, the Christ, as a gnosis, an available knowledge of the Elect.

This gnosis tills man's evil nature and produces fertile ground so that the perfect God and the flawed Man can meet and establish a fellowship. Like other Greek philosophical constructs: beauty, wisdom, and truth, Jesus, as the Logos, becomes God.

Show proof of this though. Is this your supposition or is it historical fact? I hear of antichrists in the world at that time but nowhere do I see their false doctrine outlined. Show me where you find these historical facts. Please.

Easily, but we need to leave this point out of the mix from now on, because it is not relevant to the case at hand. The only relevance was needed for it, was to establish the syntax John used in regards to his description and choice of words to compound to the readers that he was describing Christ and God as the same. We can examine the text without this example, but I thought it would be educational for the readers to understand that John was outlining, meticulously, his choice of words in order to relieve himself of the trap of creating two gods instead on of one.
If we want to analyze the text at hand, in the Greek, let's, but this mater is straying from the debate.

1 Corinthians 15 deals with the roots of Arianism in that Christ was just a man and not raised from the dead, as well as dealing with those who professed the resurrection of the dead was a past event.

The best known examples in the NT comes in the person of Simon the ‘mage’ - Acts 8:9-24. Although, little is historically known about this figure, his first disciple is said to have been Basilides.Paul’s epistles to Timothy contain refutations to “false doctrines and myths” -1 Tim 1:3-5.

As in most NT scripture, the goal is to uphold the truth since through such knowledge God hopes for “all men” to be saved - 1 Tim 2:4. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians have a lot to say regarding false teachers - 2 Cor 11:4, “spiritualists” [pneumatikos —1 Cor 2:14-15; 15:44-46, and their gnosis.

Warning against the “wisdom of the wise” and their “hollow and deceptive philosophy” -1 Co 1:19; 2:5; and cross ref: Col 2:1-10; 2:8. These are seen as the clearest texts to early Gnostic evidence in the NT. The book of Jude also contains scripture exhorting believers to seek the true faith in the 3rd chapter.

But the writings attributed to the Apostle John contain the most significant amount of content directed at combating the progenitors of heresies.Most Bible scholars agree that these were some of the last parts of the NT written and as such, can offer the most insights into a 1st century perspective. The writer’s repeated adherence to true knowledge -“hereby we know”— inherent in Jesus’ ministry, and nature, seem to challenge other speculative and opposing beliefs of the time.

The 2nd epistle of John is only 13 verses long but puts strong emphasis on the ‘Christology’ of Jesus. From its context we see the importance placed on “knowing…...and.....walking” and loving the truth, on the humanity of the man Jesus, and adherence to “teaching (the doctrine) of Christ” (cross ref: John 7:14-18). These point to false teachers who claimed to bring some higher teaching other than what the apostles taught to their followers and audiences.

[quote]The Gentile Christians at that time would have come from Greek or Roman religious influences wouldn't you say? Then what you propose, the trinity, is closer to their religions at that time than a monotheistic religion such as the Jews had. I don't see what the audience relevance does for your case.[quote]

Yes I agree, as the audience relelvance is even more evident in regards to this thought of Bi to Trinitarian deity. Jewish culture was very much influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, but like I said, this Gospel was directed at both audiences, Jewish and Gentile. John expanded on this thought, and considered them to be the same, with no partition in between, but grouped then together, as one people, which is what the intent for God's message was in the first place.

The word became flesh in all cases not just Jesus'. That is the difference. God's word inhabited every body that would accept it during this transition period. You should know that if the flesh is the temple of the Holy Spirit (God's holy spirit) then there is nothing different about Jesus being the word became flesh or the apostles through which the word spread when Jesus was not on earth.

So to me there is no basis for your assumption that Jesus is God.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, glory of the only begotten full of grace and truth

If Jesus is not God in flesh, then why is He worshiped - Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, John 9:35-38, Heb. 1:6 ? This is especially important since Jesus said that you are to worship God (the Father) only Matt. 4:10.

Yet, Jesus receives worship and never rebukes anyone for it.

If Jesus is not God, then why is He called God by Thomas who said to Jesus in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God." Jesus didn’t correct him for his error.

Hebrews 1

"For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom."

Jesus is called God by God. If He is not God, then why does the Father call Him God? Is the Father wrong? Is the writer of Hebrews wrong?

I don't know why you are complicating this. The word of God is the same concept as the word of katjonjj. My word is my idea, my thought, my principles.. my word. God's word is the same thing. It is not a being that is Christ as God. It is the words of God. I don't see why it is so hard for you to see how you give personal characteristics to the Word of God when it is just like any other word... a form of communication. Jesus stated time and again that his words were not his but the Father's...

No it isn't Kat. Your word isn't divine. The view you present is ripping the context of the "Word" and placing it in place of yourself, where it isn't called for.

If the verse started out with your name in the mix, yes I would agree, but it doesn't. This argument has no foundation whatsoever. Please refrain from it, because it only diminishes your views' credibilty.

So here you are actually unconsciously or consciously replacing the word with Christ, when the text actually states flesh not Christ. I don't understand where you made such a connection.

Flesh=Jesus? Where do you get that it is exclusive to Jesus? No where in that passage is it stated that Jesus is the only one who fits that description. What about the disciples that spread the word of God after Jesus left the earth? They then carried the teachings of Christ and thus the word of God ... didn't they? I don't see why you think the word of God has anymore meaning that the word of katjonjj (other than I am not a god lol) because the word of anyone is their thought, pact, speech.. etc. not their essence or being.

The subject of the entire prologue is about Christ.

John 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Bare witness of who?

I don't follow you here, an the view you present appears to be grasping for straws that aren't there. Stay in context please.

Please show me what excludes all other flesh from that verse? is there no other instance where the word of God became flesh?

All of 1 John speaks of the man-God in the flesh. Again, your desire to exclude just the word "flesh" itsef is non-contextual. You are doing a practice called "word-proofing" without any regard to the context therein. It devalues the credibility of the view you are presenting, as well as your debate skill.

I don't know if it is just me or what but I actually think that if someone gives up his will and takes on God's will he can live a sinless life. Maybe I am naive but I truly believe this.

This is irrelevant, but also outright wrong.

You state that Jesus was sinless because he was God but why then do you seem to think that God could be tempted as we are? There is no way, God cannot be tempted.. I doubt I even need to show you the verses that state that right?

Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Some others to help you cross referrence:

Exo 17:2; Deut 6:16; Acts 15:10

Then who did the task of spreading the word of God fall to?

I don't follow you here. The task began with Christ, God humbled in the flesh, then to the disciples, and so forth, and now we have what we have...like a mustard seed.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Is the requirement for this thread that one use the bible to prove the bible or can objective opinions that may or may not use the bible be allowed?

[katjonjj]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Not neccessarily. The audience of John's gospel was to the whole world, the very reason why he was expressing such care with describing how God becoming flesh in the form of Logos, wherein he was not creating another God out of the One True God of Israel, or the Invisible, Unseen God of the pagan world. Matthew was written to Jews, Mark to Romans, Luke to Gentiles and John to the world, Jew and Gentile.

John's use of Logos would not be understood by Jews in regards to the Origen of the "Word", whereas his book would mainly be familiar to someone practiced in the pagan mystery cults that flourished in the Hellenistic world. Heraclitus of Ephesus used the word Logos around 500 BCE to describe his concept of the regularity with which the universe seemed to operate. The universe was a divine machine and Heraclitus credited the Logos (literally the reason) as the ultimate rationale which secretly operated the universe and the heavens above, hence John's exemplary use of the "Word" to be beyond the time, space contiuum. Although Jews would indeed understand the concept of "Word" as you present it, but it was obvious, that John was very educated in Hellenistic philosophy, and rightfully attribute Logos and its orgen to be from the very beginning of not mankind, but the entire universe.

The Logos was often ill-defined, but was responsible for keeping the ratio of all things in proportion, much like the balance of Eastern yin (dark) and yang (light). The cult of Hermes made use of this to describe their Hermetic corpus written about in the Poimandres:

The [Poimandres] writer fell into a deep and heavy trance, in which there appeared to him a being who introduced himself as Poimandres (Shepherd of Men), "the Mind of Authority." Poimandres then shows the mystic a vision, in which he sees a great light and a great darkness, respectively reality and matter. From the light comes "a Holy Logos," ...the "shining Son of God," who proceeds from Mind itself.

Philo's Word was extremely popular among Jews and non-Jews alike, successfully splitting God into multiple personifications that pagan worshippers would later refine further from Bi- to Trinitarian concepts that we are familiar with today. We first see the application of the philosophy of the Logos in the prologue of the Gospel of John which begins by proclaiming Philo's triumph:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .... The same was in the beginning with God ... 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 [God]." (John 1:1-14)

John's gospel is distinct from the Synoptic Tradition because of the nature of the transformation of Jesus. The shift takes us from the Judaic idea of a chosen people's messiah, to a Wisdom, that pervades all things and all people. The Word that has existed from the beginning, and while the Word came and dwelt among men, "they knew him not." (1:12) John has promulgated the Logos in a radically new way. Suddenly, man is not only capable, but deserved from the beginning of time, to accept the Logos, the Word, the Christ, as a gnosis, an available knowledge of the Elect.

This gnosis tills man's evil nature and produces fertile ground so that the perfect God and the flawed Man can meet and establish a fellowship. Like other Greek philosophical constructs: beauty, wisdom, and truth, Jesus, as the Logos, becomes God.

You seem to miss my point and prove it at the same time. Here you are capitalizing logos as if it were a proper noun when there is no warrant for it.

In establishing who John was writing to it seems more likely that he would try to dispel greek and pagan myths rather than reinforce them by using logos as a proper noun rather than a thought, idea, etc.

Can anyone else see his use of the word logos as a proper noun? Where did the word logos earn that "proper" part? To me the word is a very basic english word.

.... If we can digress a little....

In reading through and studying Greek articles used in John 1:1 I wonder how you translate this because I am seeing that John's intention in writing the verse is different. I realize you worked hard on your responses here and I appreciate it but I think we would be better served by reverting here to answer a Greek grammar question.. if you don't mind.

Here is the Greek (John 1:1):

en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

my question is about the articles which I understand only indicate grammatical definiteness.

So the word for word translation in English is:

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god
and god was the word

Here, according to my understanding of Greek articles, "in beginning" is undefined or generic which doesn't really matter much but a translator makes the statement more English friendly by adding "the", I understand that so I will focus on the rest.

hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV
was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

The article before logoV (word) is consistent so that is also not a concern for me. But perhaps you can tell me why the articles surrounding "god" differ.

In my limited understanding of Greek grammatical definiteness or indefiniteness I see that the word was with THE god indicating that it was John's god, the Almighty God. But then we see that god was the word and this is not a definiteness but an indefiniteness grammatically.. correct?

Now please forgive me my ignorance in translating the Greek, but it seems to me that the last phrase:
kai qeoV hn o logoV
and god was the word

is not what you claim it to be. There is no article in the Greek before qeoV (god) so we know that it is the indefinite term for God and not like the one before referring to John's God.

If we may pause the debate for a second..so I may learn.. It seems to me that John is saying that the word became A GOD and is using the conjunction to add to the previous statements creating two gods here, John's God (ton qeon) and a god (qeoV). It seems to me that this would indicate just what Jesus stated when accused of saying he was God.. the scripture declares "ye are gods."

There is a big difference between the common translation:
"and the word was God"
and
"and a god was the word"

Also if you have time, in Acts 28:1-6 the same grammatical problem arises but is handled differently by translators.

Thanks in advance!