On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:19:16 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
>
>Uzytkownik "Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> napisal w wiadomosci
>news:iqc3c1hjticresf1lmqrkol5rung0jt1pi@4ax.com...
>> Is Jesus the Logos? The Greek logos is used several hundred times in
>> the New Testament. Only two verses might be construed as to "imply"
>> that Jesus is the logos. Rev 19:13 which speaks of the future where
>> it says "and his name shall be called the Word of God" and John 1:14,
>> below, which does not say that Jesus is the Logos. Jesus is usually
>> separated from the Word in the verses were Jesus and word of God
>> appear as below
>>
>> Luke 4:4 KJV
>> 4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not
>> live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
>
>And he said also "_I am_ the way, the truth and _the life_". From this we
>see He is the living Word of GOd.
>
>You have to put together "living by the Word that proceedeth from the mouth
>of God"
>and "I am ... the life", and you get "I am the Word".
Why didn't he or the Father just say it?
>
>We live by Christ, but in what way do we receive Him?
>
>BY FAITH and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
>
>Faith is of hearing, knowledge is of sight.
>We "walk by faith and not by sight" and we are justified through that faith.
>
>But the faith that we get through the hearing the word about Jesus emphasis
>the way in which He is the Word, for He himself justifies us, when we
>believe in him for our salvation.
>
>There is no contradiction here, just a deeper way of understanding the
>truth.
>
>Christ is the Word. You can be sure of it, and He personally pre-existed, he
>told us so, saying "before Abraham was, I AM".
But that doesn't fit with Exodus 3:14 which says I will be who I will
be. Jesus was speaking of God's foreknowedge.>
>
>
>> Revelation 1:2 KJV
>> Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus
>> Christ, and of all things that he saw.
>>
>
>This is not a contradiction either, if you are referring to the word 'and'.
>Properly understood this verse underscores the deity of Christ.
It's not a contradiction. It says two exist.
>
>Unless you are trying the old joke about the lawyer's widow who went to the
>mason and said "I want my husband's
>gravestone to say "here lies a good man and a lawyer", and the mason said
>"you do know there's a law in this state against putting two men in the same
>grave?"
>
>That joke illustrates that it is perfectly possible to use "and" without
>contradiction.
>
"And" is a cooridinating conjunction that sets "a" in correspondence
with "b"; but "a" and "b" are still different. They are two, not one.
>
>>
>>
>> John 1:1-14 KJV
>>
>> Words in braces "{words}" are the KJV italics. Words in brackets
>> "[words]" are mine.
>>
>> 1 In the beginning was the Word [will of God], and the Word [will of
>> God] was with God, and the Word [will of God] was God.
>> 2 The same [will of God] was in the beginning with God.
>> 3 All things were made by him [God] ; and without him [God] was not
>> any thing made that was made.
>> 4 In him [God] was life; and the life [God] was the light of men.
>> 5 And the light [God] shineth in darkness; and the darkness
>> comprehended it not.
>> 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name {was} John.
>> 7 The same [John] came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light
>> [God], that all {men} through him [God] might believe.
>> 8 He [John] was not that Light [God], but {was sent} to bear witness
>> of that Light [God].
>> 9 {That} was the true Light [God], which lighteth every man that
>> cometh into the world.
>> 10 He [God] was in the world, and the world was made by him [God],
>> and the world knew him [God] not.
>> 11 He [God] came unto his [God] own , and his [God's] own received
>> him [God] not.
>> 12 But as many as received him [God], to them gave he [God] power to
>> become the sons of God, {even} to them that believe on his [God] name:
>> 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor
>> of the will of man, but [born of the will] of God.
>> 14 And the Word [will of God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
>> (and we beheld his [the will of God] glory, the glory as of the only
>> begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
>>
>> Verse fourteen begins with the coordinating conjunction "And" that
>> tells us that verse fourteen continues the statement began in verse
>> thirteeen. To understand what verse fourteeen says, it is necessary
>> to understand what verse thirteen says. When we find out what verse
>> fourteen says, we will know what verse one says because the Word of
>> God interprets itself in the context. Below are verses thirteen and
>> fourteen stripped of verse numbers and the parenthesis marks supplied
>> in the KJV that do not appear in the RSV or NASB. Words within
>> brackets are mine.
>>
>> Which were born, not of blood,
>> nor of the will of the flesh,
>> nor of the will of man,
>> but [born of the will] of God.
>>
>> And the Word [will of God] was made flesh,
>> and dwelt among us,
>> and we beheld his [the will of God] glory,
>> the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and
>> truth.
>>
>> The adverb "not" in verse thirteen is from the Greek ou and means
>> absolutely not. Had the Greek word me been used, it would have been a
>> qualified negtation. They were absolutely not born of bloods (blood
>> is plural in the Greek via the Heterosis where the Plural is put for
>> the Singular - see below). Thus, bloods agrees with what follows.
>> The figure Paradiastole (explained in detail below) marks verse
>> thirteen by emphasizing the will of the flesh and the will of man.
>> The word flesh is marked by the figure Synecdoche of the Part where
>> flesh (the part) is put for the human (whole) and as such represents
>> man, anthropos. The word man is translated from the Greek aner which
>> is an adult male. Anthropos is a human regardless of gender, age or
>> race and Aner is an adult male. The verse says that they were born
>> absolutely not be the will of humans in general and were absolutely
>> not born by the will of an adult male. The conjunction "but" sets
>> what follows in contrast with what was said before so that what is
>> said about God is opposite or opposed to the will of humans and the
>> will of man. Words are missing following the word "but" before the
>> words "of God". This is the figure Ellipsis (explained below) where a
>> word or words are omitted from the text to draw our attention to what
>> is being said. The will of God is contrasted to the will of the flesh
>> and the will of man. Therefore, the passage should end "but of the
>> will of God." They were absolutely not born not of blood or of the
>> will of the flesh or of the will of man, but were born of the will of
>> God.
>>
>> In verse fourteen the conjunction "And" continues the thought "will of
>> God." Therefore, the Word is the will of God that became flesh. The
>> will of God dwelt among us, and we beheld the glory of the will of
>> God, and the will of God was the only begotten of the Father. Jesus
>> is not named the Logos in any verse in the Bible except in Revelation
>> 19:13 where speaking of a future time it says "his name shall be
>> called the Word of God."
>>
>> We simply transfer the definition of the Word to verse one and we see
>> that John 1:1 speaks about the will of God. This can be done in the
>> same way those who define the Word in verse fourteen transfer Jesus to
>> verse one. The Word of God interprets itself in the context.
>>
>> John 1:14 speaks of a time when Jesus was an adult male (we beheld
>> means they saw his glory). The context shows that the date of this
>> event had to do with the baptism of John. Therefore the will of God
>> became flesh when Jesus was baptized. This precludes Jesus from
>> existing in time past except in the foreknowledge of God (the will of
>> God).
>>
>> Definitions of Figures from E W Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in
>> the Bible
>
>It doesn't matter.
>
>You put Bullinger above the Bible, but I'm far from certain that Bullinger
>himself would have approved of the way you use his scholarship.
No I don't. Bullinger was a trinitarian. He was a brilliant man and
I have learned a lot from his writings; but just a man.
>
>Was Bullinger a unitarian? I don't think so. I would have thought, that
>without evidence to the contrary in his work, he ascribed to his church's
>doctrine, which is a trinitarian doctrine.
Bullinger was trinitarian. I do not follow Bullinger's theology or
philosophy, just his principles of research and other good stuff that
he wrote about that is in harmony with the scriptures.
>
>Why do you, who think so much of his scholarship, cherry pick his views so
>that you take his erudition and twist it to mean something the man himself
>would have refuted?
Because Buillinger was a disciplined intelligent man who I beleive
loved God and God's Word. I can relate to Bullinger on a personal
level and even aspire to be like him in some areas and still disagree
with some of his theology. I like you and I like a lot of the stuff
you write, but I do not agree with everything you write. By the way,
when are going you going to get off your tail and write something?
You haven't contrinuted much more than responses for months.
>
>I've snipped the rest of it, as it has no bearing other than to give you a
>falsely borrowed authority which you do not possess.
>
>And now, a question for you:
>
>How can a Christ who is not God bear the sins of the world? In what way is
>it even fair that he should have done this, and how was a sinless human
>achieved anyway without very God himself entering the arena in flesh?
That's easy. God can not be a sacrifice to Himself. Also, God does
not have a body to sacrifice. Jesus is a man and had a body suitable
for the task. How was sinnlessness achieved? Discipline and
obedience. Had Jesus been God he whole thing would have been a joke,
a ruse, a falsehood. I think you are better versed in the book of
Hebrews than I am. Hebrews answers your questions.
>
>It's no coincidence that most of the people who preach non-deity of Christ
>also preach a works religion. You seem to be preaching a religion of
>justification by grace through faith in Jesus alone, not a works salvation,
>and yet without the deity of Christ, and frankly I don't think there has
>ever been a group of people who have had that message since it lacks
>internal logic: people see that a Christ who is not God would not be able to
>save men to the uttermost.
I do not preach a works religion. Just the opposite. Trinitarianism
is a works religion. I believe in salvation by grace and that rewards
are earnhed for service to the body. There is only one way to the
Father and that is the Way, Jesus Christ. I just happen to believe
that he is a man and my Lord and Saviour. You think Jesus is a God
and your Lord and Savior. We disagree on the method of travel; but
our destination is the same - paradise; not heaven.
>
>Or do you think you are the only person in the history of the world to have
>arrived at the truth? And if so, why does it need such contortion and
>running to Bullinger whilst not even agreeing with Bullinger's theology to
>get at it?
I think that there are more unitarians than trinitarians. I am not a
unitarian, but do look at things more their way with regard to who God
and Jesus Christ are. The fact is, I do not even know what their
doctrines are and have never been to one of their churches.
How does that line from Amazing Grace go?
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound, That saved a Sowle like me!
I once was a trinitarian but now am saved. Was blind, but now I see.
>Uncle Davey
>
>
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
|
|