Peterlag
Active Member
It was written by a student who learned it from the same teacher I grew up with. The data has been known to both of us since we were teenagers.
The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Peterlag
Active Member
Here's some folks commenting on the logos in John 1:1...
If we look back at Genesis, God created the heavens and earth and then he created light: 'And God said, "Let there be light". This initial act of creation is spoken into being - it is the word of God. Throughout the following chapters of Genesis, we get the repetition of 'God said ...'. The creative act is the spoken word of God. It is the divine will which is shown through the word of God in this spoken act of creation. So, 'word' can be seen as the divine utterance, the initial impulse of creation. When John describes Jesus as the 'word made flesh', perhaps he is suggesting that Jesus is the manifestation of that divine impulse to creation. It doesn't need to mean that the person of Jesus was there at the beginning; it means that the divine will was there at the beginning, and the divine will was made incarnate in the person of Jesus. Note, that it is the spoken word of God that bestows authority upon Jesus at his baptism: 'This is my son'.
Similarly, 'word' can be read as meaning commandment - it is the command of God that brings light etc. into being. Commandment, of course, links with the notion of law. And the law of the commandments was handed to Moses on tablets of stone - the written word of god. Jesus, of course, is the embodiment of that law, the incarnation of the commandments - the word made flesh to fulfill the law.
So we have the spoken word of God as the divine commandment that brings all things into being, the written word of God given to Moses, the voice of God at Jesus's baptism, and ultimately the living Word of God in the person of Jesus.
None of this needs Jesus to be pre-existent.
Written by: Stephen
John is the only apostle who tries to connect Jesus to the word of God. Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke connect Jesus to the word of God in any way whatsoever. So the synoptic gospels are in full agreement and contain a gospel absent any logos christology, this is devastatingly crushing to your view and the Trinitarian view, which you are in agreement with.
The simple explanation for John's use of logos is that it's obviously a symbolic representation. John calls Jesus a shepherd, light, door, bread etc. none of these metaphors are to be taken literally and no other Apostle ever alludes to or ever mentions this connection to the logos, not Paul or Peter or anyone in the book of Acts, nor in any of the epistles. Jesus even denied being the literal word of God repeatedly in John's gospel. Does his opinion matter or just yours? The nail in the coffin, not once did Jesus ever claim to be the logos, he said the logos was his Father's and he was just the vehicle of that word. You said: "The broader New Testament consistently depicts the Logos..." that's a falsehood.
Written by: David
Oh the Greek teaches the Trinity. That's cool since I cannot find a verse in English that actually calls Jesus God the Son.
Or...
An English verse that actually says Jesus is a god-man.
An English verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
An English verse that actually says we must believe God is three persons.
An English verse out of approximately 31,102 Bible verses that says God is Triune.
An English verse that actually says Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
An English verse that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should have been plainly and clearly taught by someone somewhere.
Written by: Peter
He’s not the Logos. He fulfilled the Logos. Learn what words mean then apply them.
Written by: Stacy
If we look back at Genesis, God created the heavens and earth and then he created light: 'And God said, "Let there be light". This initial act of creation is spoken into being - it is the word of God. Throughout the following chapters of Genesis, we get the repetition of 'God said ...'. The creative act is the spoken word of God. It is the divine will which is shown through the word of God in this spoken act of creation. So, 'word' can be seen as the divine utterance, the initial impulse of creation. When John describes Jesus as the 'word made flesh', perhaps he is suggesting that Jesus is the manifestation of that divine impulse to creation. It doesn't need to mean that the person of Jesus was there at the beginning; it means that the divine will was there at the beginning, and the divine will was made incarnate in the person of Jesus. Note, that it is the spoken word of God that bestows authority upon Jesus at his baptism: 'This is my son'.
Similarly, 'word' can be read as meaning commandment - it is the command of God that brings light etc. into being. Commandment, of course, links with the notion of law. And the law of the commandments was handed to Moses on tablets of stone - the written word of god. Jesus, of course, is the embodiment of that law, the incarnation of the commandments - the word made flesh to fulfill the law.
So we have the spoken word of God as the divine commandment that brings all things into being, the written word of God given to Moses, the voice of God at Jesus's baptism, and ultimately the living Word of God in the person of Jesus.
None of this needs Jesus to be pre-existent.
Written by: Stephen
John is the only apostle who tries to connect Jesus to the word of God. Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke connect Jesus to the word of God in any way whatsoever. So the synoptic gospels are in full agreement and contain a gospel absent any logos christology, this is devastatingly crushing to your view and the Trinitarian view, which you are in agreement with.
The simple explanation for John's use of logos is that it's obviously a symbolic representation. John calls Jesus a shepherd, light, door, bread etc. none of these metaphors are to be taken literally and no other Apostle ever alludes to or ever mentions this connection to the logos, not Paul or Peter or anyone in the book of Acts, nor in any of the epistles. Jesus even denied being the literal word of God repeatedly in John's gospel. Does his opinion matter or just yours? The nail in the coffin, not once did Jesus ever claim to be the logos, he said the logos was his Father's and he was just the vehicle of that word. You said: "The broader New Testament consistently depicts the Logos..." that's a falsehood.
Written by: David
Oh the Greek teaches the Trinity. That's cool since I cannot find a verse in English that actually calls Jesus God the Son.
Or...
An English verse that actually says Jesus is a god-man.
An English verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
An English verse that actually says we must believe God is three persons.
An English verse out of approximately 31,102 Bible verses that says God is Triune.
An English verse that actually says Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
An English verse that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should have been plainly and clearly taught by someone somewhere.
Written by: Peter
He’s not the Logos. He fulfilled the Logos. Learn what words mean then apply them.
Written by: Stacy
Doug Brents
Active Member
That explains it. You have been indoctrinated by a false teacher. I read the first couple of lines and it is nothing more than what you have been parroting on this forum for weeks.
In John 14:26, Jesus calls the Holy Spirit He, and He says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you."
Then in John 15:26, Jesus again calls the Holy Spirit a He, and states that He (Jesus) will send the Holy Spirit FROM the Father.
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, namely, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, He will testify about Me"
Your teacher is not teaching accurate Scriptural Truth. He is teaching false doctrines.
I looked briefly at some of peterlag's website(s). It is some weird non-Christian spiritist topic. I could not read further into it since the material was so foreign to scripture.
Peterlag
Active Member
How does me teaching what teachers taught me called Parroting? And what your teachers taught you called your own stuff? At some point in this life after many years of our teachers and parents being dead. We must grow up and form our own ideas. But according to you I'm Parroting for the rest of my life. The reason I know so much is because I went to school and had teachers.
P.S. If the spirit is telling you that Jesus is God. That spirit is not from God. The spirit from God will say that Jesus came in the flesh. The false spirit will say God came in the flesh. There's your test of the spirit.
oh wow. a complete reversal of what scripture says. not surprising. That is the problem of this spiritism concept of interpretation of the scripture.
Peterlag
Active Member
There are many verses indicating that the power and authority Jesus had...
was given to him by the Father. Jesus Christ would have always had those things that the Scripture says he was “given” if he was the eternal God. Christ was:
was given to him by the Father. Jesus Christ would have always had those things that the Scripture says he was “given” if he was the eternal God. Christ was:
- Given “all authority” Matthew 28:18).
- Given “a name above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
- Given work to finish by the Father (John 5:36).
- Given those who believed in him by the Father (John 6:39, 10:29).
- Given glory (John 17:22, 24).
- Given his “cup” [his torture and death] by the Father (John 18:11).
- “Seated” at God’s own right hand (Ephesians 1:20-21).
- “Appointed” over the Church (Ephesians 1:22).
uh. I don't think peterlag encountered the passages showing Jesus was not just here in full power and glory of God. If he had come that way, people would be dying who saw him. So for Jesus to have this interaction as God's Son with his Father, these points are not some findings missing contextual basis.
There is a definite bias of overlooking the preexistent One who took on flesh as Jesus.
Runningman
Active Member
We have been over this, but there are examples of people in the Bible that God foreknew and predestined who didn't pre-exist or incarnate. The piece you're still missing is an example of a pre-existent Jesus. You have been shown there aren't any examples for you to reference. I understand you have beliefs and arguments that you can produce, but arguments are only your attempts at a persuasion that no one is required to be persuaded about. The stronger argument against your persuasive arguments is the lack of evidence of "the preexistent One who took on flesh as Jesus." If you had an Old Testament verse showing Jesus pre-existing, a prophecy about God incarnating, and not just quote John 1 on an island alone isolated from the rest of the Bible, you might have a point. You also might have a point if you could show Jesus was foreknown or predestined differently than anyone else who didn't pre-exist. The main issue is you are lacking broad Scriptural support.
Runningman
Active Member
I am under the impression that they have a dual-Jesus-philosophy. If you say "Jesus" they will think that's a human only. If you say "Son of God" then that isn't Jesus anymore, but they think that's God, if you say "Son of Man" they seem to think that's the human Jesus most of the time. Some of them just say Jesus to refer to either version of Jesus without letting you know which version of Jesus they are talking about, only to flip flop on which Jesus it is as convenient or necessary for the argument. If you show them where the the Bible says the Son of God is the same person as the Son of Man then they will argue against it.
The hypostatic union doctrine has been one of their safety nets due to the issues Scripture presents for trinitarianism, but there are better scholars nowadays. The trinitarians didn't vet their doctrine well enough before creating it at the Council of Chalcedon and releasing it into the wild in the mid 5th century; now they are stuck with it and their apologetics books don't teach how to defend it against Scripture.
That's why when I refer to Jesus, I try to be clear which Jesus I am referring to for them. The one they think is the "Son of God" in their trinity is shown to not be God in example. The point is we don't want them always mustering up excuses and moving the field goal posts around and they will unless we make that difficult to impossible for them.
Matt 16:13 - Jesus asked “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
Matt 16:14 - They said some say he is JTB, or Elijah, or one of the prophets
Matt 16:15 - Jesus asks Peter directly who he says Jesus is.
Matt 16:16 - Peter answered “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Matt 16:17 - Jesus replied that Peter's response about the Son of Man being the Son of God was revealed to him by the Father.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Active Member
The idea that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent human makes no sense. But like you say it gets them out of jail every single time because they can toggle back and forth whenever they need to. And when I tell them nothing can be 100 percent of two different things. Then they tell me it's spiritual and that's why I can't understand. And if that does not work. They then tell me I don't know the Bible because I went to school for it and had Bible teachers and am not as great as they who just go by the Scriptures.
you still are wrong after 2 years of this. You do not need to be persuaded by this but I was hoping you could come to know the true Word who in continuity of consciousness became flesh. You have to remember that you would need to come up with a strong argument to deny the testimony of scripture of the deity of Christ. You have failed that for nearly two years -- a consistent record though.
Obviously Peterlag has a strongly divergent concept of spiritism that is unrelated to scriptures.
Doug Brents
Active Member
The difference is that what you are teaching is directly contradictory to what Scripture says. And when this fact is pointed out, you point to what someone taught you, and their website appears to be where you copied your comments from.
Then you are saying that John 1 was not inspired by God? It is not really Scripture?
Of course it will, that is Truth.
Wrong, false spirits say that Jesus is not God. The Spirit of God, who inspired Scripture, tells us that Jesus is God. So yes, one of the parts of God did indeed come in the flesh.
Remember, you are three parts:
Body, Soul, and Spirit
And God is three parts:
Jesus (Body), Father (Soul), and Holy Spirit (Spirit).
Your test adds to what Scripture actually says. Care to try again?
civic
Active Member
except there is nothing in Johns Prologue that even hints that the Logos is a spoken word. In fact the Word is identified as a Person who pre existed creation, created all things, is before all created things, is called God and was face to face with another Person who is also called God. God is Plural and the Word WHO was with( para-relationship) God was before creation of all things. This same WORD who is God declares John became flesh, a man. John the baptist who is 6 months older than Jesus in the same 1 chapter of John says 2 times that He existed before he did. Its clear the Logos is the Eternal God, the Creator of all things as John declares in all his writings, as Paul declares in his writings and also the writer of Hebrews declares in that epistle.
Notice I avoided all of your claims above and stuck with the biblical terms and text to refute your " SMOKESCREEN ".
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
continued for the reader who are teachable and desire to learn the truth from Scripture.
NT:4314
89.112 NT:4314† pros: a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships - 'with, before.' ei)rh/nhn e&xomen pro\$ to\n qeo/n 'we have peace with God' Rom 5:1; kai\ o( lo/go$ h@n pro\$ to\n qeo/n 'the Word was with God' John 1:1; parrhsi/an e&xomen pro\$ to\n qeo/n 'we have confidence before God' 1 John 3:21.
Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies- Louw and Nida Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament
The Word is also seen has having eternally coexisted with a specific person called God (Greek, ton theon- the God, with the definite article implying that John has a specific person in mind). The term pros implies that not only is there a distinction between the Word and God, but that the Word is also personal. The Word is not just an impersonal attribute existing in the mind of God, but is a distinct person who has coexisted with God from eternity:
"John's use of the preposition pros 'with' is significant. It implies that the Father and the Son had an intimate as well as eternal relationship. Lenski explains:
The preposition pros, as distinct from heos, para, and sun, is of the greatest importance... The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inferring in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than God.
The above coincides perfectly with John 17:5 where we read Jesus saying He was with ( para ) in relationship together, alongside the Father sharing the same Glory that is Gods alone before the Creation.
Strong's Concordance
para: from beside, by the side of, by, beside
Original Word: παρά
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: para
Phonetic Spelling: (par-ah')
Definition: from beside, by the side of, by, beside
Usage: gen: from; dat: beside, in the presence of; acc: alongside of.
Thayers Greek Lexicon
para- with the genitive; and as in Greek prose writings always with the genitive of a person, to denote that a thing proceeds from. the side or the vicinity of one, or from one's sphere of power, or from one's wealth or store, Latina, ab; German von ... her, von neben; Frenchde chez; (English from beside, from);
b. with, i. e. in one's house; in one's town; in one's society: ξενίζεσθαι (which see), Acts 10:6; Acts 21:16; μένειν, of guests or lodgers, John 1:39 (); ; Acts 9:43; Acts 18:3, 20 (R G); f; ἐπιμένειν, Acts 28:14 L T Tr WH; καταλύειν, Luke 19:7 (Demosthenes, de corona § 82 (cf. Buttmann, 339 (292))); ἀριστᾶν, Luke 11:37; ἀπολείπειν τί, 2 Timothy 4:13; παρά τῷ Θεῷ, dwelling with God, John 8:38; equivalent to in heaven, John 17:5; μισθόν ἔχειν, to have a reward laid up with God in heaven, Matthew 6:1; εὑρεῖν χάριν (there where God is, i. e. God's favor (cf. Winer's Grammar, 365 (343))), Luke 1:30; a person is also said to have χάρις παρά one with whom he is acceptable, Luke 2:52; τοῦτο χάρις παρά Θεῷ, this is acceptable with God, pleasing to him, 1 Peter 2:20 (for בְּעֵינֵי, Exodus 33:12, 16; Numbers 11:15); παρά Θεῷ, in fellowship with God (of those who have embraced the Christian religion and turned to God from whom they had before been estranged), 1 Corinthians 7:24; παρά κυρίῳ (in heaven), before the Lord as judge, 2 Peter 2:11 (G L omit and Tr WH brackets the phrase); παῥ ὑμῖν, in your city, in your church, Colossians 4:16; with a dative plural equivalent to among, Matthew 22:25; Matthew 28:15; Revelation 2:13; παῥ ἑαυτῷ, at his home, 1 Corinthians 16:2.
hope this helps !!!
NT:4314
89.112 NT:4314† pros: a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships - 'with, before.' ei)rh/nhn e&xomen pro\$ to\n qeo/n 'we have peace with God' Rom 5:1; kai\ o( lo/go$ h@n pro\$ to\n qeo/n 'the Word was with God' John 1:1; parrhsi/an e&xomen pro\$ to\n qeo/n 'we have confidence before God' 1 John 3:21.
Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies- Louw and Nida Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament
The Word is also seen has having eternally coexisted with a specific person called God (Greek, ton theon- the God, with the definite article implying that John has a specific person in mind). The term pros implies that not only is there a distinction between the Word and God, but that the Word is also personal. The Word is not just an impersonal attribute existing in the mind of God, but is a distinct person who has coexisted with God from eternity:
"John's use of the preposition pros 'with' is significant. It implies that the Father and the Son had an intimate as well as eternal relationship. Lenski explains:
The preposition pros, as distinct from heos, para, and sun, is of the greatest importance... The idea is that of presence and communion with a strong note of reciprocity. The Logos, then, is not an attribute inferring in God, or a power emanating from him, but a person in the presence of God and turned in loving, inseparable communion toward God and God turned equally toward him. He was another and yet not other than God.
The above coincides perfectly with John 17:5 where we read Jesus saying He was with ( para ) in relationship together, alongside the Father sharing the same Glory that is Gods alone before the Creation.
Strong's Concordance
para: from beside, by the side of, by, beside
Original Word: παρά
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: para
Phonetic Spelling: (par-ah')
Definition: from beside, by the side of, by, beside
Usage: gen: from; dat: beside, in the presence of; acc: alongside of.
Thayers Greek Lexicon
para- with the genitive; and as in Greek prose writings always with the genitive of a person, to denote that a thing proceeds from. the side or the vicinity of one, or from one's sphere of power, or from one's wealth or store, Latina, ab; German von ... her, von neben; Frenchde chez; (English from beside, from);
b. with, i. e. in one's house; in one's town; in one's society: ξενίζεσθαι (which see), Acts 10:6; Acts 21:16; μένειν, of guests or lodgers, John 1:39 (); ; Acts 9:43; Acts 18:3, 20 (R G); f; ἐπιμένειν, Acts 28:14 L T Tr WH; καταλύειν, Luke 19:7 (Demosthenes, de corona § 82 (cf. Buttmann, 339 (292))); ἀριστᾶν, Luke 11:37; ἀπολείπειν τί, 2 Timothy 4:13; παρά τῷ Θεῷ, dwelling with God, John 8:38; equivalent to in heaven, John 17:5; μισθόν ἔχειν, to have a reward laid up with God in heaven, Matthew 6:1; εὑρεῖν χάριν (there where God is, i. e. God's favor (cf. Winer's Grammar, 365 (343))), Luke 1:30; a person is also said to have χάρις παρά one with whom he is acceptable, Luke 2:52; τοῦτο χάρις παρά Θεῷ, this is acceptable with God, pleasing to him, 1 Peter 2:20 (for בְּעֵינֵי, Exodus 33:12, 16; Numbers 11:15); παρά Θεῷ, in fellowship with God (of those who have embraced the Christian religion and turned to God from whom they had before been estranged), 1 Corinthians 7:24; παρά κυρίῳ (in heaven), before the Lord as judge, 2 Peter 2:11 (G L omit and Tr WH brackets the phrase); παῥ ὑμῖν, in your city, in your church, Colossians 4:16; with a dative plural equivalent to among, Matthew 22:25; Matthew 28:15; Revelation 2:13; παῥ ἑαυτῷ, at his home, 1 Corinthians 16:2.
hope this helps !!!
Peterlag
Active Member
I started entering all my Bible school notes on a computer for the first time when I bought my first computer. There was so much that I had it in 7 sections and spent years editing and re-writing the document in my own words and then called the 7 sections 7 chapters because I realized I had a paper the size of a book. In my second addition I had went through it many times as I continued to edit and rewrite the entire document once again over the duration of months and then added more notes from books and other classes that I had taken. I then built another website as I put all this together and called it "Stephen full of faith and power" and you can view it for free at...
https://walking-by-the-spirit.com
Peterlag
Active Member
The idea that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent human makes no sense.
But it gets the Trinitarian out of jail every single time because they can toggle back and forth whenever they need to. And when I tell them nothing can be 100 percent of two different things. Then they tell me it's spiritual and that's why I can't understand. And if that does not work. They then tell me I don't know the Bible because I went to school for it and had Bible teachers and am not as great as they who just go by the Scriptures.Doug Brents
Active Member
Experts, such as federal agents and bank tellers, do not study counterfeit money to spot fakes; they spend their time thoroughly studying the details, texture, and security features of genuine currency.
The same is true of Scripture. By studying the details, texture, , context, and cross-references of Scripture, false doctrines leap out as originating from Satan.
By mastering the real thing, fakes become instantly recognizable. Knowing the truth is the most effective method of detection. It is not necessary to study your doctrines to know they are false.
Peterlag
Active Member
There is nothing false about what I teach. Nothing. And since you got me digging into my teachers. Here's the guy as far as I can go back that taught me the Holy Spirit field.
His name is B.G. Leonard, (born in 1906) who chartered the ministry with the federal government of Canada after many years of operation without any official standing on November 22, 1949. Christian Training Centre of Texas was incorporated on February 27, 1973.
Runningman
Active Member
The issue with the arguments you present is that they don't say what you say they do, i.e., the Bible never says Jesus is the angel of the Lord, never said he appeared as 1 of 3 men to Abraham, never says he pre-existed, never says he incarnated, etc. No matter how strongly you feel about your beliefs, from a purely Scriptural perspective, your beliefs are purely speculative at best. I am not even mentioning all of the contradictions you introduce with your theories.
Similar threads
