Thomas... My Lord and my God

[mikesw]

Yes, God is the Father and Jesus is the Son. My thoughts on why logos was used in John 1:1 is because God's word did the creating in the beginning.

The question would be - What would the original readers have understood with this verse? We have to remember that this was written to people who had NO IDEA OF AN ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. They only had what was known through the OT scripture and scripture clearly depicts that a singular person identified as either the LORD, the LORD God, or God - created.

I did not respond to any of the above.

The ignorance of this response is rather bleak. I suppose part of the reason is by "trinity" being in the discussion here -- maybe not the fault of amazing grace, though. We mainly see the two here.

It is far too weak to say they only had the OT here. Of course they already have many of the NT writings. And most of the people reading the gospel likely were gentiles. Also, there were the Greek philosophers and Philo who had influenced people despite being inspired who thus were not all accurate. Yet, they were influential.

Furthermore, there has been the knowledge of Christ Jesus. That is why many people read it. That is why they could know details ahead of reading this. John is not speaking out of the blue. He is writing in light of all this earlier information. He however adds insights in John 1:1 and continues about the deity of Christ. You seem unable to get beyond the Pharisaical understanding (or even ignorance) and thus join into the NT knowledge.

 

[civic]

I am not espousing anything philosophical - I don't know enough about 'secular Greek philosophy from Plato' to espouse upon it!!!! I'm just talking normal, logical stuff!!!
You wouldn't know me at all if not for my words you read in these forums.

You are espousing Plato’s logos not the biblical Logos

 

[Peterlag]

Wake up

It states his name is the word of God

My name is Peter. Am I a stone?

 

[amazing grace]

The ignorance of this response is rather bleak. I suppose part of the reason is by "trinity" being in the discussion here -- maybe not the fault of amazing grace, though. We mainly see the two here.

It is far too weak to say they only had the OT here. Of course they already have many of the NT writings. And most of the people reading the gospel likely were gentiles. Also, there were the Greek philosophers and Philo who had influenced people despite being inspired who thus were not all accurate. Yet, they were influential.

Agreed they had the OT and yes they had the intertestament books which were not included in the Protestant Bible but are still in the Catholic Bibles.
"The time between the last writings of the Old Testament and the appearance of Christ is known as the “intertestamental” (or “between the testaments”) period. It lasted from the prophet Malachi’s time (about 400 BC) to the preaching of John the Baptist (about AD 25). Because there was no prophetic word from God during the period from Malachi to John, some refer to it as the “400 silent years.” Got?
And yes, there were the Greek philosophers. Just depends on how much weight you want to give them.

Furthermore, there has been the knowledge of Christ Jesus. That is why many people read it. That is why they could know details ahead of reading this. John is not speaking out of the blue. He is writing in light of all this earlier information. He however adds insights in John 1:1 and continues about the deity of Christ. You seem unable to get beyond the Pharisaical understanding (or even ignorance) and thus join into the NT knowledge.

They would know the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. They would know that God had made a covenant with Abraham “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."
They knew that God was raising up a Prophet like Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—........ I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him."
They would know about the Davidic Covenant the Covenant between God and David: "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." And many more prophecies concerning him ---- None of which John would conclude that God would become flesh, a man. Correct, John is not writing out of the blue - He was after all a Hebrew, a Jew.

 

[amazing grace]

My name is Peter. Am I a stone?

A rolling stone!!

 

[civic]

The stone which the builders rejected a rock of offense , a stumbling stone.

 

[mikesw]

Agreed they had the OT and yes they had the intertestament books which were not included in the Protestant Bible but are still in the Catholic Bibles.
"The time between the last writings of the Old Testament and the appearance of Christ is known as the “intertestamental” (or “between the testaments”) period. It lasted from the prophet Malachi’s time (about 400 BC) to the preaching of John the Baptist (about AD 25). Because there was no prophetic word from God during the period from Malachi to John, some refer to it as the “400 silent years.” Got?
And yes, there were the Greek philosophers. Just depends on how much weight you want to give them.

It is quite customary for the unitarian to totally distract from the topic. Most who would read John would work from the NT writings-- the writings of Paul at the earlier stages and the gospels a little later, though the gospel content was recognized as being widely spread, at least in oral forms.
For preparation for Christianity, there were writings of Philo and of Greek philosophers. Cultural awareness of the philosophical concept of logos would be within gentiles would. Jews also would have awareness of ideas of Philo. Like recognized in other posts here, John 1 skips the inaccuracies of those writers but still show that the logos is the one involved in creation who became incarnate as Jesus. You really have not shown why people would be ignorant of all this cultural background that they lived in within the first century.

They would know the prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. They would know that God had made a covenant with Abraham “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."

Wow. you have learned some stuff about Abraham. It is off topic from the current discussion though.

They knew that God was raising up a Prophet like Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—........ I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him."

Another brownie point for knowing that tidbit from Deuteronomy. Again it is not related to the current topic.

They would know about the Davidic Covenant the Covenant between God and David: "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." And many more prophecies concerning him ---- None of which John would conclude that God would become flesh, a man. Correct, John is not writing out of the blue - He was after all a Hebrew, a Jew.

Whoa. Three points that are unrelated to the discussion. Next time you can try to get back on topic.

 

[amazing grace]

It is quite customary for the unitarian to totally distract from the topic. Most who would read John would work from the NT writings-- the writings of Paul at the earlier stages and the gospels a little later, though the gospel content was recognized as being widely spread, at least in oral forms.
For preparation for Christianity, there were writings of Philo and of Greek philosophers. Cultural awareness of the philosophical concept of logos would be within gentiles would. Jews also would have awareness of ideas of Philo. Like recognized in other posts here, John 1 skips the inaccuracies of those writers but still show that the logos is the one involved in creation who became incarnate as Jesus. You really have not shown why people would be ignorant of all this cultural background that they lived in within the first century.

OMGosh . . . you can't even agree with you people!!!

Wow. you have learned some stuff about Abraham. It is off topic from the current discussion though.
Another brownie point for knowing that tidbit from Deuteronomy. Again it is not related to the current topic.

Whoa. Three points that are unrelated to the discussion. Next time you can try to get back on topic.

Furthermore, there has been the knowledge of Christ Jesus. That is why many people read it. That is why they could know details ahead of reading this. John is not speaking out of the blue. He is writing in light of all this earlier information. He however adds insights in John 1:1 and continues about the deity of Christ. You seem unable to get beyond the Pharisaical understanding (or even ignorance) and thus join into the NT knowledge.

Abraham, Moses and David information that pointed to the knowledge of the coming Messiah, the Son of God.

 

[mikesw]

OMGosh . . . you can't even agree with you people!!!

Oh no!! Maybe I do not have to be lockstep with those you say are my people. I still share knowledge for you to consider. Scripture does use events and ideas contemporary to its writings and God can emphasize the true details.

Abraham, Moses and David information that pointed to the knowledge of the coming Messiah, the Son of God.

Maybe I missed the issue you were correcting. But the prophecies and promises only say there will be the one we know as Messiah without saying all that he is.

 

[TomL]

My name is Peter. Am I a stone?

And you think that statement helps your position?

Wake up

It states his name is the word of God

Did you miss the pronoun or the word?

 

[TomL]

Yes, God is the Father and Jesus is the Son. My thoughts on why logos was used in John 1:1 is because God's word did the creating in the beginning.

Jesus is the word

1)Revelation 19:13 (NASB 95) — 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

2) And all things came through the word, and in him was life and the life was the light of men. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ ” For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

thus the word was Jesus


John 1:1–17 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ ” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

 

[Peterlag]

And you think that statement helps your position?



Did you miss the pronoun or the word?

Names are not what something is. I'm a human. I'm not a Peter.

The word "Father" is a name (a title) and so is "God" so if you want to try to come up with three God's. Good Luck.

 

[mikesw]

Names are not what something is. I'm a human. I'm not a Peter.

And while we are on the subject the word "Father" is a name and so is "God" so if you want to try to come up with three God's. Good Luck.

Peterlag can express confusion at an extreme level of development.

Peterlag's argument would make Baal equal to the Father. Pretty weird stuff.

 

[TomL]

Names are not what something is. I'm a human. I'm not a Peter.

The word "Father" is a name (a title) and so is "God" so if you want to try to come up with three God's. Good Luck.

So according to you, neither the titles Father or God define the being they reference.

In any case the word is shown to be the being known as Jesus Christ

 

[FreeInChrist]

When someone responds to your quotes - they are using the words you said - your own words or words that you have quoted from a source and they respond in agreement with YOU; it is still YOU that said it NOT US that said anything - they just agreed with what YOU said. Those words YOU posted, YOU put together with thought and reason from YOUR mind.

I saw where a error happened in what you posted and synergy corrected it for you - that would be an US that made the post but not an US that said what was in the POST.

A person's words are their own, even if I take and quote YOUR WORDS that doesn't make them MINE - they are YOURS. That's why some authors of books or articles require permission to use them and should always be named as a source.

True.

God's word is not separate from Himself - Just as what you speak is not separate from you.
God had a plan in mind and that plan in God's mind started taking shape as God spoke things into being.

Yes, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters or moving over the waters dependent on translation. "Then God said" and by His Spirit, His power, God started the creation process. That is ONE.

NO, the Holy Spirit is clearly stated to be the power of the Most High not a separate person in Luke.
"INFUSED INTO MARY" - What exactly does that mean? Does that mean Mary 'conceived'?
You have the power of God - aka the holy spirit which is God and Mary present - the holy child was begotten, conceived. A human being conceived, therefore a human being was conceived in Mary's womb and a human child would be born.

The Spirit of God - seen and presented physically as a dove - descended on Jesus at his baptism filling him with the Spirit, i.e. baptizing him with holy spirit (John 3:34), strengthening him to face the temptations of Satan (Mark 1:13) and giving him power to begin his ministry (Luke 3:23).

 

[TomL]

Thus says the LORD........I made the earth and created man on it; it was MY hands that stretched out the heavens and I commanded all their host; .......For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (HE is God!), who formed the earth and made it(HE established it, HE did not create it empty , he formed it to be inhabited!), I am the LORD, and there is no other......I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right. [Isaiah 45:11a,12,18,19b]

Hebrews 1:8–10 (NASB 95) — 8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

 

[civic]

I am not espousing anything philosophical - I don't know enough about 'secular Greek philosophy from Plato' to espouse upon it!!!! I'm just talking normal, logical stuff!!!
You wouldn't know me at all if not for my words you read in these forums.

You sure are when you make logos in John 1:1 not God and impersonal

 

[Peterlag]

So according to you, neither the titles Father or God define the being they reference.

In any case the word is shown to be the being known as Jesus Christ

Perhaps Trinitarians understand the definition of "God" as some kind of a substance or essence. Word definitions sometimes need adjustment when false doctrines are at stake.

Hint: Father is not a God. It's a title, a name.

 

[TomL]

Perhaps Trinitarians understand the definition of "God" as some kind of a substance or essence. Word definitions sometimes need adjustment when false doctrines are at stake.

Hint: Father is not a God. It's a title, a name.

Hint we are dealing with biblical passages and biblical context.

Do you hold God the Father to be an it?

 

[FreeInChrist]

Perhaps Trinitarians understand the definition of "God" as some kind of a substance or essence. Word definitions sometimes need adjustment when false doctrines are at stake.

Hint: Father is not a God. It's a title, a name.

Have you told that to Jesus? Can we correct Him in the Bible you are writing?

Jesus said... " “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

He did not even use His own name..... Wow... How perceptive you are.!!! Not.