GJohn 1.1 ἦν

[APAK]

but their problem is not what they believed in their minds but what you have in yours.

You put words in the Lords mouth to assume Christ was teaching a unity of substance; but the truth is rather he spoke of mutual agreement between the Father and himself, affirming, that, whatsoever he does, would be sanctioned by the power of the Father."

You force some perverted hybrid nature on Christ to satisfy your dogma when Christ is teaching sanctification.

Sad!

F2F

Yes, this is a forced hybrid nature.

Is it/he a freakish 2-nature, one being or is it/he a 2-nature, two being entity. Or only 1- nature, one being, or 1-nature 2- being. And then adding in a divine-human nature, or only one divine nature. I guess he cannot be a human being else that would violate the sacred paradigm..

 

[face2face]

This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ at this point in the discussion. In 451 AD ignorant uninspired people ensured he/ Jesus was the centerpiece of God's core (logos). Quite astonishing, evil and dead wrong indeed

If a Christian can grasp that truth; that Logos in its various manifestations, whether physical or spiritual, has always been from the beginning (God's Mind), however that which exists out of Logos has a beginning and end - only God (Yahweh) is uncreated and is from everlasting to everlasting...everything else is created, including Christ.

F2F

 

[APAK]

If a Christian can grasp that truth; that Logos in its various manifestations, whether physical or spiritual, has always been from the beginning (God's Mind), however that which exists out of Logos has a beginning and end - only God (Yahweh) is uncreated and is from everlasting to everlasting...everything else is created, including Christ.

F2F

Excellent cry of reason (Logos) pun intended.

This is drum beat of God in scripture. He alone is reality and the creator of it for his creation, not his Son.

 

[face2face]

Yes, this is a forced hybrid nature.

Is it/he a freakish 2-nature, one being or is it/he a 2-nature, two being entity. Or only 1- nature, one being, or 1-nature 2- being. And then adding in a divine-human nature, or only one divine nature. I guess he cannot be a human being else that would violate the sacred paradigm..

Precisely...its a formulated doctrine out of necessity. How ironic is it that the dilemma exists between the finite and infinite; between mortal and immortality...man endeavors to bring them together where the Gospel writers taught clearly the Christ was the son of David after the flesh. God raised up a son in sins flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. That Christ was tempted in all points as we and yet without sin. That while Christ wrestled in the flesh death had dominion over him UNTIL His father removed the law of sin and death which was working in his members and note; the sting of death is no more for us because it was removed in Christ - the firstborn from the dead.

So they not only exalt Christ beyond what God has but they rob God of His victory over sins flesh and His arch enemy "death".

All these things will be reveal Apak when the Lord returns and boy how many will be given the opportunity to recall these discussions?

May the Lord come quickly

F2F

 

[face2face]

I wont be surprised if this thread gets locked up. It's hard for T believers to support their teaching as they must ignore the context and bring ideas externally which aren't there. For one, it gets tiring for them, and as we have seen in the truth of pre-eminence and sanctification which are clearly inspired themes, whereas pre-existence and 3n1 godhead, isn't.

I still love these believers, so much so I try to reveal truth at every opportunity, and I'm certain these matters will be dealt with at his coming.

“I am the root and the offspring of David,” says Jesus and he is coming!

God bless your reading

F2F

 

[St. SteVen]

The earliest 'fathers' had it right until the late 2nd and 3rd century AD when pagan and Greek thought entered the picture and alters the nature of God and his Son forever, where before the 'logos' was clearly understood as the innate core attribute of the one God Almighty.

It was and is, his, alone, then today and tomorrow, regardless of his Son we have known as Jesus the Christ.

The issue then was not that God owned the logos as one being alone; they already knew this. It was which came or acted first, his logos or his active spirit composition or form. I take the former, his logos internally is center and always active and projects in his timing this logos as spirit into his creation, and into this world he created with his logos....

This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ at this point in the discussion. In 451 AD ignorant uninspired people ensured he/ Jesus was the centerpiece of God's core (logos). Quite astonishing, evil and dead wrong indeed

Agree.
The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. This flesh was Jesus. (and not before) IMHO

Who, and/or what, was the Logos BEFORE the Logos became flesh?

[

 

[face2face]

Agree.
The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. This flesh was Jesus. (and not before) IMHO

Who, and/or what, was the Logos BEFORE the Logos became flesh?

[

That admission places you outside the camp St.Steven but don't be concerned, one greater than us has already been there.
F2F

 

[KUWN]

Below is the OP for a topic I launched on the subject.
I was developing some thoughts on the Logos as more than a person but a reason, or meaning.
Curious about your thoughts. Thanks.

Let me give you one to two of my notes regarding this topic. Because, you developing some thoughts on the logos as more than a person is actually how the Greek Philosophy would take this verse. the question in John 1 is whether or not you want to take this as a Jewish expression or a Greek one.

Greek historical backgrounds: As a philosophical term, logos meant the ‘world-soul’, the soul of the universe. This was an all-pervading
principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense, all things came from it; in another, men derived their wisdom from it. These concepts are at least as old as Heraclitus (6th cent. BC): the logos is “always existent” and “all things happen
through this logos.”

Later Hellenistic thought: Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher of the early 1st century, frequently mentions the logos (it appears over 1400 times in his writings), but he is really concerned with his Platonic distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of ideas. It was the Stoics who actually developed the concept of logos. They abandoned Plato’s heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (closer to Heraclitus) that the Universe is pervaded by logos, the eternal Reason. They were convinced of the ultimate rationality of the universe, and used the term logos to express this conviction. It was the ‘force’ (!) that originated and permeated and directed all things. It was the supreme governing principle of the universe. But the Stoics did not think of the logos as personal, nor did they understand it as we would. understand God (i.e. as a person to be worshiped).

John, then, is using a term that would be widely recognized among the Greeks. But the ‘man in the street’ would not know its precise significance, any more than most of us would understand the terms ‘relativity’ or ‘nuclear fission’. But he would know it meant
something very important.

The rest of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy, and even less of dependence on it.
John, in his use of logos, is cutting across the fundamental Greek concept of the gods: they were detached, they regarded the struggles and heartaches and joys and fears of the world with serene, divine lack of feeling. John uses logos to portray a God so involved, so caring, so loving and giving that he becomes incarnate within his creation.

Finally, the Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord the heavens were made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting point of all things.”

 

[face2face]

Let me give you one to two of my notes regarding this topic. Because, you developing some thoughts on the logos as more than a person is actually how the Greek Philosophy would take this verse. the question in John 1 is whether or not you want to take this as a Jewish expression or a Greek one.

Greek historical backgrounds: As a philosophical term, logos meant the ‘world-soul’, the soul of the universe. This was an all-pervading
principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense, all things came from it; in another, men derived their wisdom from it. These concepts are at least as old as Heraclitus (6th cent. BC): the logos is “always existent” and “all things happen
through this logos.”

Later Hellenistic thought: Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher of the early 1st century, frequently mentions the logos (it appears over 1400 times in his writings), but he is really concerned with his Platonic distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of ideas. It was the Stoics who actually developed the concept of logos. They abandoned Plato’s heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (closer to Heraclitus) that the Universe is pervaded by logos, the eternal Reason. They were convinced of the ultimate rationality of the universe, and used the term logos to express this conviction. It was the ‘force’ (!) that originated and permeated and directed all things. It was the supreme governing principle of the universe. But the Stoics did not think of the logos as personal, nor did they understand it as we would. understand God (i.e. as a person to be worshiped).

John, then, is using a term that would be widely recognized among the Greeks. But the ‘man in the street’ would not know its precise significance, any more than most of us would understand the terms ‘relativity’ or ‘nuclear fission’. But he would know it meant
something very important.

The rest of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy, and even less of dependence on it.
John, in his use of logos, is cutting across the fundamental Greek concept of the gods: they were detached, they regarded the struggles and heartaches and joys and fears of the world with serene, divine lack of feeling. John uses logos to portray a God so involved, so caring, so loving and giving that he becomes incarnate within his creation.

Finally, the Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord the heavens were made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting point of all things.”

@St. SteVen what the Greek won't do is explain how Jesus (the person) can be God and also the Root & Offspring of David, when David did not pre-exist.

You see the dilemma?

Jesus' identity is either Fully God, or fully the Son of God & the Son of David - Jesus cannot be all three.

If he is God then all the references to his existence deriving from Adam, Abraham & David is merely a lie, a façade in the hope of God trying to identify Himself with man.

For those who know the One true God, they know this is not His Holy approach to the things of His Creation.

The person of Christ eithers owes his existence to David or he doesn't.

If he doesn't the entire Gospel falls over for it would be predicted on a lie - that Jesus IS the Son of David after the Flesh as per Romans 1.

F2F

 

[KUWN]

Jesus' identity is either Fully God, or fully the Son of God & the Son of David - Jesus cannot be all three.

This is close to blasphemy. Can God the Father be Fully God and Fully the Father?

 

[face2face]

This is close to blasphemy. Can God the Father be Fully God and Fully the Father?

Does Jesus owe any of his person and existence to David

Yes or no?

If no, explain how can he be the Root of Jesse?

F2F

 

[face2face]

@KUWN also I'm not interested in what you deem blasphemous...I'm only interested in what is truth. If you speak truth and we agree then we are one with Christ and God. Not in nature as you rightly know but in mind and purpose.

F2F

 

[St. SteVen]

@St. SteVen what the Greek won't do is explain how Jesus (the person) can be God and also the Root & Offspring of David, when David did not pre-exist.

You see the dilemma?

That makes no sense. IMHO
I see no dilemma.

The text tells us:
1) The Logos was from the beginning.
2) The Logos was with God.
3) The Logos was God.
4) The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. (Jesus)

If the Logos became the flesh that dwelt among us (Jesus), then the Logos was God in the beginning.

[

 

[Fred J]

God is not the image but the One being imaged.

Yes, apparently the scripture is referring to Jesus, and not carnal men.

Jesus the Word, alone being the exact image of the invisible GOD, also in appearance.

Hebrews 1:
3. Who being the brightness of HIS GLORY, and the express image of HIS person, ............................................

 

[face2face]

That makes no sense. IMHO
I see no dilemma.

The text tells us:
1) The Logos was from the beginning.
2) The Logos was with God.
3) The Logos was God.
4) The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. (Jesus)

If the Logos became the flesh that dwelt among us (Jesus), then the Logos was God in the beginning.

[

Became, correct = firstborn from the dead.

How Son of David after the Flesh?

 

[face2face]

Yes, apparently the scripture is referring to Jesus, and not carnal men.

Jesus the Word, alone being the exact image of the invisible GOD, also in appearance.

Hebrews 1:
3. Who being the brightness of HIS GLORY, and the express image of HIS person, ............................................

A developed likeness!

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. Luke 2:52

F2F

 

[face2face]

Yes, apparently the scripture is referring to Jesus, and not carnal men.

Jesus the Word, alone being the exact image of the invisible GOD, also in appearance.

Hebrews 1:
3. Who being the brightness of HIS GLORY, and the express image of HIS person, ............................................

He is effulgence of his (i.e. the Father’s) glory...the Glory is not his and not once does he claim ownership of this Glory. This must concern the Trinitarian. To my knowledge there is not a logical explanation or spiritual reason why Jesus, if being God, would not claim the Glories true origin i.e Jesus himself, of course if Jesus were a born Son (like all sons though he has a God as a Heavenly Father) who did not pre-exist, this makes sense - he could not claim ownership of something which was not his.

Heb 1:3 is drawing on Christs true position in his relation to God as Jesus shows in plain language in John 12:45;14:9. The writer is using metaphors which had already been applied to Wisdom and the Logos. The meaning “effulgence” suits the context of Heb 1:3 better, because Jesus manifested the Word of God, Light i.e. the Glory of that Word was manifest through sinful flesh and overcame to reveal the Glory of God - particularly His righteousness (John 1:1; Rom 3:20,21,22,23,24,25,26)

If I were a Trinitarian I would be looking for text which is not expressive of the idea of the One and only effulging His light through a mortal condemned man - language which involved Jesus being the image of the actual substance would be disconcerting - as this is what is promised of all Gods children.

What would further concern me regarding Heb 1:3 is Pauls support of effulgence in Heb 1:4 "By the word (of God) his power" he "became" so much better than the angels - if Jesus were God this makes no sense at all - in fact why even mention it - shouldn't that be assumed? If the Word is Christs - if the Glory is Christ - If the Name was always Christs - And the Power - why compare him to a higher position to angels? mere servants! Heb 1:14

It would only be special if his position was a reward for faith (Heb 11:6)

Again you would rightly ask "why is everything light, wisdom, glory etc coming from a single source and not Christ himself?" This leads to kenotic doctrine for it must needs be designed to answer these questions.

And finally, we find Christ "sat down" having accomplished the works God had assigned to him he rested beside the Majesty. Notice even in his now glorified state he is not assigned a title anything beyond Son of the Most High.

The entire book of Hebrews then proceeds to highlight Jesus as pictured in Heb 1:1-4 as King (Prophet and Priest) Messiah seated at the right hand of God.

There simply is no context here for a pre-existent Christ - there is plenty of awe in wonder of an obedient Son being glorified to a position of marvelous glory beside his Father but anything more is old dogma.

Heb 1:4 "He became" & "He Inherited" are problematic for Trinitarians as both terms infer a changing in rank and status. However the rank and status is not the Most High. Most High infers none other beside Him is the Highest. How can God inherit anything? Psalm 50:10 ;

 

[Fred J]

For example: When it states "we shall be like him" it's not saying we shall actually be Christ - no, no, no! It's saying we shall be like him in character, purpose and when changed in nature. This is true of Christ also.

F2F

Again, Christ is the Word, spirit, and the Lord from Heaven who became flesh, compared to carnal men of the earth.

Will make it simple and grasp it like a child, for theirs is the Kingdom according to Jesus. Jesus said come like these little children you grown ups, doctorates and etc. Hence to perceive like an innocent child the doctrine of the Kingdom of GOD is like.

Furthermore, GOD consider the wisdom of this world to be folly. In order for one to become wise to the matters of the Kingdom is like, one need to become folly to the matters of the kingdom of this world is like.

This is what Paul acclaims, that to what he have gained being a Pharisee and leader of Israel once. Now in Christ and perceived like a child the true Kingdom of GOD is like, he have counted them all of the past as lost.

Next point, Jesus answers Philip, that for how long have he been with Him and yet demand Him to show the FATHER? And the answer is simple and due to Philip, is our lesson today, that if any one have seen Jesus, have seen the FATHER period

Yet the doctorates and etc. of today would dispute, Jesus in character is the image of the invisible GOD, and not by appearance. The reason again why is, as Jesus said, that you cannot pour new wine into an old wine bag skin. For the bag only swells up and burst, and all the new wine will spill out and will be wasted.

These even translate Greek text word to word in English today to prove a point that is folly, as to scatter the seeds that have been already sown. When our true saint forefathers translated based on the expression of the Greek writer in context, to the expression in English language in context.

Peace be with you in Jesus name

 

[Fred J]

A developed likeness!

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. Luke 2:52

F2F

Yet at the age of 12, He blew away?

What did angel Gabriel tell Mary her Son will grow up to be?

There is an unapproachable distance between Jesus and man.

 

[face2face]

Again, Christ is the Word, spirit, and the Lord from Heaven who became flesh, compared to carnal men of the earth.

Correct, God used His Logos to create a Son, born of a Woman, born under the Law, the Son of David after the Flesh and Glorified because of his obedience.

Will make it simple and grasp it like a child, for theirs is the Kingdom according to Jesus. Jesus said come like these little children you grown ups, doctorates and etc. Hence to perceive like an innocent child the doctrine of the Kingdom of GOD is like.

3n1 dogma cannot be explained or comprehended because its not of God but the confusion from men's minds. No different to trying to comprehend all the false notions surrounding fallen angels; eternal torment; ethereal spirits wafting to heaven...all of it fabrication in peoples minds!

Furthermore, GOD consider the wisdom of this world to be folly. In order for one to become wise to the matters of the Kingdom is like, one need to become folly to the matters of the kingdom of this world is like.

Christ was crucified in weakness and you share that weakness - care to explain? or is this foolishness also?

This is what Paul acclaims, that to what he have gained being a Pharisee and leader of Israel once. Now in Christ and perceived like a child the true Kingdom of GOD is like, he have counted them all of the past as lost.

Next point, Jesus answers Philip, that for how long have he been with Him and yet demand Him to show the FATHER? And the answer is simple and due to Philip, is our lesson today, that if any one have seen Jesus, have seen the FATHER period

Correct - in Character and Purpose! Context is everything...

Yet the doctorates and etc. of today would dispute, Jesus in character is the image of the invisible GOD, and not by appearance. The reason again why is, as Jesus said, that you cannot pour new wine into an old wine bag skin. For the bag only swells up and burst, and all the new wine will spill out and will be wasted.

Speaking to the OT compared to the NT covenant.

These even translate Greek text word to word in English today to prove a point that is folly, as to scatter the seeds that have been already sown. When our true saint forefathers translated based on the expression of the Greek writer in context, to the expression in English language in context.

Peace be with you in Jesus name

Peace also

F2F