Behold
Well-known member
I believe you.
Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)
- Thread starter Fred
- Start date
I believe you.
civic
Well-known member
@MatthewG and @Matthias are different members/posters and I know them both from another forum. I disagree with them both on several different doctrines. And Matthew and Mattias disagree with each other on several different doctrines. We all believe some truth and we all believe some error. No one has perfect understanding of the Bible. We can all learn things from others and gain insight. On the other hand we must all have discernment and take whatever someone says with a grain of salt and be good Berean's and search the scriptures to see if what someone says is scriptural and biblical.
Behold
Well-known member
In the "time of the Gentiles' its not required that a believer have perfect understanding of the "bible".
There are many parts of the Bible that will never be understood perfectly, as they are too deep for shallow man's comprehension or discernment.
However, what is required is that we "all come to the same mind of faith"... "as many as be perfect"...
And that is simply to understand Pauline Theology, perfectly.
This begins with :
Hebrews 13:9
Romans 3:21-28
2 Corinthians 5:19
John 3:17
Romans 4:8
Those are absolute "must discern" "must study"..
civic
Well-known member
Yes there is a core belief that contains essentials to our faith that has been once and for all delivered to the saints. There are what the N.T. calls sound doctrine. These are where born again believers should all be unified.
Maybe a thread in needed
Matthias
Well-known member
“1.18 presses home the point. John takes for granted the fundamental ‘given’ of most current sophisticated theistic systems: that God, or the ultimate God, was beyond human conception. Certainly the assertion that ‘No one has ever seen God‘ was a fundamental axiom of Israel’s religion and the basis of its abhorrence of idolatry. But Logos theology had already provided a way of envisaging how the unseen God had nevertheless made himself known - through the word that he uttered, in creation, in revelation, in redemption. And John simply (!) takes the thought one step further in claiming that Jesus was now the one who made the unseen God visible, the unknowable God knowable (cf. Col. 1.15).”
(Dunn, Ibid., p. 349)
Would highly agree. Love both of you, we do all differ on some things.
The Greek speaking Alexandrian Jews were already using the term Logos in the LXX. When Philo tried to marry that term to Greek philosophy, he was severely shuned by the Jews. John just followed LXX convention and never appealed to Philo.
Furthermore, the Alexandrian Jews already had the LXX that wrote of OT Theophanies. So it just took a consultation of their scriptures to verify that the Logos of God was God.
What's happening here amongst some historians is that there exists a severe ignorance of the vital importance that the LXX played in the conversion of the Jews to Christianity.
Matthias
Well-known member
Dunn is not in your league.
Matthias
Well-known member
Johann
Well-known member
Seems like a good read-I can just sit here and drool and concur with your statement.
Johann
Well-known member
Think it's time for me to gather my scattered Jewish sources.
Matthias
Well-known member
Dunn‘s commentary on John’s prologue is brilliant. He understands the OT / Jewish background John is coming from and with. His fellow trinitarians have slandered him, just as they slandered Tyndale and others.
Matthias
Well-known member
“Since the Logos christology of John is not explicit in the rest of the Gospel, despite the links to his dominant Son christology, it is important to recognize that the prologue could be more accurately described as Wisdom christology. The reason why John preferred the prologue’s focus on the Word could simply be that he preferred the masculine Logos to the feminine Sophia (‘wisdom’), though the wider familiarity with logos outside Judaism was probably a factor too.
The fact is, however, that apart from Philo, Wisdom was the more commonly used term in early Judaism’s reflection on God’s interaction with his creation and his people Israel. The parallels between the Johannine prologue and the reflection on Wisdom are more extensive than those with Logos. …
Obviously logos and sophia were equivalent or alternative overlapping ways of speaking about God‘s interaction with the world he made and with his people - …”
(Dunn, Ibid., pp. 349, 350)
The fact is, however, that apart from Philo, Wisdom was the more commonly used term in early Judaism’s reflection on God’s interaction with his creation and his people Israel. The parallels between the Johannine prologue and the reflection on Wisdom are more extensive than those with Logos. …
Obviously logos and sophia were equivalent or alternative overlapping ways of speaking about God‘s interaction with the world he made and with his people - …”
(Dunn, Ibid., pp. 349, 350)
Matthias
Well-known member
You keep strumming and I’ll keep pecking. Though I’m going to take a break. I’ve been at this almost non-stop today for the past 10 hours.
With your background, what Dunn is saying should be music to your ears.
What we have here is a clash of history between Diaspora/Alexandrian Jews and Pharisaic Jews. I'm on the side of the Diaspora/Alexandrian Jews who were the first to side with the Apostles.
Johann
Well-known member
I'm signing off brother-2.45 AM and hopefully someone might hear my plight in helping me with these sources I've never heard of before-I grew up learning everything Jewish and have had conversations with many rabbis in the בתי ספר and Shul's- with some help.
Interesting conversation with you @Matthias.
Later.
J.
Matthias
Well-known member
Alexandria, Egypt. Home sweet home territory for orthodox trinitarianism.
Not only Alexandrian but all Diaspora Jewish groups. Now you're beginning to see what many historians are blind to, mistakenly or deliberately.
Matthias
Well-known member
You speak presumptuously.
