ECT Was the man Jesus God before He was Glorified . . .

[nikolai_42]

But we, [me anyway] believe He was from the context given us in both the OT.



If we have His Spirit, we belong to Him. And to whatever degree we honor it are we given His LIFE. Too bad you don't seem to grasp that arrangement.

That's not what I was militating against.

 

[nikolai_42]

What's your problem? Why the sarcastic ending line?

Not sarcastic, just extending the logic of the line of thought out to it's conclusion. We certainly use the word of God in worship - but it is not IT that we worship. Man was formed by the Word. Jesus actually was the Word - and the Word was God..

 

[Clete]

. . . . . . or was His humanity simply speaking from a divine disposition?

I sincerely ask without a religious agenda.

The first chapter of John is I think as clear on this as can be but my bet is you were aware of John chapter one before asking this question and so it seems that biblical arguments aren't going to cut it so let me answer your question with a question....

If it was not God who died for our sins, by what standard of justice would that death have paid the sin debt of more than one other person?

Your question really strikes at the very core of the Christian faith. The Bible flatly states that Jesus was God in the beginning and that He became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1) and in addition to that, we know that God is just and that, therefore, it had to be God who died for our sins because the death of a mere man could only pay the debt of no more than one other man. And that is presuming that the man who died was perfectly innocent which we know (also from Scripture) it is impossible for a mere man to be. Thus, if you get the answer to your question wrong, you undermine, not only the plainly stated truth of the Bible but of justice and God's own righteousness itself and thereby the veracity of the whole of Christianity.

The direct answer to your question then is an emphatic, "YES!". Jesus is not a man who became God, He is the eternally existent God who became a man. A change, by the way, that was permanent. He is still a man to this day and will remain one from now on. So much for the classical doctrine of Immutability.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Not sarcastic, just extending the logic of the line of thought out to it's conclusion. We certainly use the word of God in worship - but it is not IT that we worship. Man was formed by the Word. Jesus actually was the Word - and the Word was God..

The word in John translated "Word" is Logos. The meaning of the word is identical to what we mean by 'rational discourse" or "reason" or "logic". Indeed, the English word "logic" is derived from the Greek word "logos". One wonders why the tranlsators are afraid to use the nearly perfect English equivalent! In any case, the use of the phrase "the Word" in John is NOT referencing the bible. It is saying that Jesus is the incarnation of Logic.

The first several verses of John would be more accurately rendered in English as follows...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Now, that will sound weird and foreign to you but that is very much closer to what the passage is saying than what you get from reading the King James (or any other modern English translation for that matter). The ideas conveyed in that rendering are what would have been in the minds of the first-century readers of John Gospel. It was a rather common idea at the time and John uses it intentionally.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. The idea expressed in this post is not original to me. It's as old as the hills and even people who I otherwise disagree with almost entirely (doctrinally speaking) understand and acknowledge that Logos = Logic. See the linked article below for a thorough treatment of the subject that was written by a Clavinist of all things....

God and Logic Gordon H. Clark (One time Chairman of the Dept. of Philosophy, Butler University)

 

[Zeke]

It was never said of Jesus Christ that He was God's epistle - His letter to men. But that is what Paul says of those who are His.

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 3:1-6

It is certain that those who are His have His Spirit. And that is reiterated more fully here :

To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Colossians 1:27

Christ in you certainly speaks of the Holy Spirit and of the Son. But one is the testimony of the other in the sense that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us (Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25). But that does not negate Him being in us. Just as He prayed to the Father :

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
John 17:21-23

And as close a relationship as Jesus here delineates (the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father and the disciples all being one in both of them) there is still - as in the Godhead - not an indication that one IS the other. We may bear the Word of God, we may bear the Spirit of God, but it is never said that we ARE that word made flesh. You say that of us, you necessarly collapse the Godhead into Unitarianism (or some variant thereof) and the distinctions in John 17 (and elsewhere) lose their clarity.

It certainly does include everyone born of woman, the word made flesh dwells in us Acts 17:24 1Cor 3:16, and among Acts 17:28-29 seeing everyone we meet has that same indwelling Seed that fell/scattered and slept/died in the heart/soil of all men, ignorant 2Tim 2:13 that they have Divine amnesia Galatians 4:1, when we awake to who we are Divine Seed Luke 15:17, Divine love 1Cor 13:1-13 draws us back to are rightful position as a heir Galatians 4:28 not a dead religious slave born of secularism/intellectual doctrines of exclusive worship, professing themselves to be wise in the letter that killeth etc... Galatians 4:24, Matt 11:11 over powered by following observation of this world instead of Luke 15:32, John 4:24, Luke 17:20-21, John 18:36.

 

[Danoh]

The word in John translated "Word" is Logos. The meaning of the word is identical to what we mean by 'rational discourse" or "reason" or "logic". Indeed, the English word "logic" is derived from the Greek word "logos". One wonders why the tranlsators are afraid to use the nearly perfect English equivalent! In any case, the use of the phrase "the Word" in John is NOT referencing the bible. It is saying that Jesus is the incarnation of Logic.

The first several verses of John would be more accurately rendered in English as follows...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Now, that will sound weird and foreign to you but that is very much closer to what the passage is saying than what you get from reading the King James (or any other modern English translation for that matter). The ideas conveyed in that rendering are what would have been in the minds of the first-century readers of John Gospel. It was a rather common idea at the time and John uses it intentionally.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. The idea expressed in this post is not original to me. It's as old as the hills and even people who I otherwise disagree with almost entirely (doctrinally speaking) understand and acknowledge that Logos = Logic. See the linked article below for a thorough treatment of the subject that was written by a Clavinist of all things....

God and Logic Gordon H. Clark (One time Chairman of the Dept. of Philosophy, Butler University)

You ever hear the expression "what is the reasoning behind your assertion?"

It is a question seeking out the origin or ordering behind another's conclusions and assertions.

That is Logos.

In short, you've wandered off into your own logos, or ordering, or origin of, for, or behind a thing.

For that is what logos actually refers to: to the beginning of a thing; to its' basis, order, and or origin.

In fact, this very sense of the word logos I am describing is also what allows even a total stranger to look at another's assertion, and from it trace it back to its' reasoning or origin.

And those passages there in John 1 repeat what they repeat because that is what they are emphasizing - That Christ was/is Himself the Beginning of the Beginning.

That Christ was the Logos, or Origin of all things.

As in Paul's God is not the author or origin of confusion or chaos, but of peace or order...

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

The very description of the Lord, used throughout the Scripture. As in...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Those three passages are all asserting one and the same thought or intended meaning.

That the Lord was the Beginning of the Beginning: the very Origin and or Ordering of the Beginning itself..

You see this passage...

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

It adds that He is the Logos, Origin or Order behind, or, of life itself.

It is asserting that He was no ordinary being.

Rather; the very Logos BEHIND ALL all Creation.

He was/is the Origin, or Great Orderer behind all things.

As in passages like these here...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

You see that?

His very words brought existence itself into existence.

The Word was The Big Bang...or Origin.

Later we read of the PLURALITY of those Three...

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

That is logos - the origin of, or ordering of a thing into existence, or being.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Father; the Son; and the Spirit, are that closely One.

Yours is a mistake, here, Clete, common in the practice of many; the failure to note the many, many times throughout Scripture that what is meant in a passage is often repeated in a same, or similar passages, but in different words.

I'm afraid bro, the logos, ordering, and or origin behind your reasoning has ended up described by John as...

1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I'm afraid it's back to the drawing board for you as to any "leading" on this one, bro.

Or As Peter had put it...

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You're one of the sharpest people on TOL.

But you often manifest an over reliance on your own reasoning over that of The Scripture's, as the logos, ordering, or origin behind your conclusions, and thus, of your assertions.

You often manifest the razor sharp intellect of very few within the various MAD Pastor's and Teachers.

What I often find missing within your various assertions, though; is it's subjection to where The Scripture is often actually looking at one thing or another from.

Again, Scripture often defines what it means merely by repeating it's own assertions but with a different word order and or with different words.

Often, in a same passage, and or neighboring passages.

Yours in Him, bro.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

 

[Clete]

You ever hear the expression "what is the reasoning behind your assertion?"

It is a question seeking out the origin or ordering behind another's conclusions and assertions.

That is Logos.

In short, you've wandered off into your own logos, or ordering, or origin of, for, or behind a thing.

For that is what logos actually refers to: to the beginning of a thing; to its' basis, order, and or origin.

In fact, this very sense of the word logos I am describing is also what allows even a total stranger to look at another's assertion, and from it trace it back to its' reasoning or origin.

And those passages there in John 1 repeat what they repeat because that is what they are emphasizing - That Christ was/is Himself the Beginning of the Beginning.

That Christ was the Logos, or Origin of all things.

As in Paul's God is not the author or origin of confusion or chaos, but of peace or order...

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

The very description of the Lord, used throughout the Scripture. As in...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Those three passages are all asserting one and the same thought or intended meaning.

That the Lord was the Beginning of the Beginning: the very Origin and or Ordering of the Beginning itself..

You see this passage...

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

It adds that He is the Logos, Origin or Order behind, or, of life itself.

It is asserting that He was no ordinary being.

Rather; the very Logos BEHIND ALL all Creation.

He was/is the Origin, or Great Orderer behind all things.

As in passages like these here...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

You see that?

His very words brought existence itself into existence.

The Word was The Big Bang...or Origin.

Later we read of the PLURALITY of those Three...

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

That is logos - the origin of, or ordering of a thing into existence, or being.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Father; the Son; and the Spirit, are that closely One.

Yours is a mistake, here, Clete, common in the practice of many; the failure to note the many, many times throughout Scripture that what is meant in a passage is often repeated in a same, or similar passages, but in different words.

I'm afraid bro, the logos, ordering, and or origin behind your reasoning has ended up described by John as...

1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I'm afraid it's back to the drawing board for you as to any "leading" on this one, bro.

Or As Peter had put it...

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You're one of the sharpest people on TOL.

But you often manifest an over reliance on your own reasoning over that of The Scripture's, as the logos, ordering, or origin behind your conclusions, and thus, of your assertions.

You often manifest the razor sharp intellect of very few within the various MAD Pastor's and Teachers.

What I often find missing within your various assertions, though; is it's subjection to where The Scripture is often actually looking at one thing or another from.

Again, Scripture often defines what it means merely by repeating it's own assertions but with a different word order and or with different words.

Often, in a same passage, and or neighboring passages.

Yours in Him, bro.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

You say I'm wrong and then present nothing that contradicts what I've asserted. You then claim I rely too much on my reasoning in response to a post where I specifically state and cite an article showing that the ideas I've expressed are not original to me.

It is not my own reasoning that I rest in, it is Reason Himself (capital R).

But, having said that, I'd also say that ten errors in reason are safer to trust than ANY blind "faith" assertion. This is because errors of reason can be corrected by the honest mind but blind "faith" is precisely the opposite of that which is referred to in John 1 as "the light of men". Reason (capital R) is that which gives epistemological "light" and makes understanding possible. Blind faith is just that, blind, and it turns off the very process that permits errors to even be detected, never mind corrected.

Clete

 

[Danoh]

You say I'm wrong and then present nothing that contradicts what I've asserted. You then claim I rely too much on my reasoning in response to a post where I specifically state and cite an article showing that the ideas I've expressed are not original to me.

It is not my own reasoning that I rest in, it is Reason Himself (capital R).

But, having said that, I'd also say that ten errors in reason are safer to trust than ANY blind "faith" assertion. This is because errors of reason can be corrected by the honest mind but blind "faith" is precisely the opposite of that which is referred to in John 1 as "the light of men". Reason (capital R) is that which gives epistemological "light" and makes understanding possible. Blind faith is just that, blind, and it turns off the very process that permits errors to even be detected, never mind corrected.

Clete

I pointed it out.

What you choose to do with it is on you.

The various ways in which John 1 itself basically says the same thing prove your conclusion is your own.

Obviously, your approach does not take this simple principle into account:

That Scripture often repeats what it means by an assertion through repeating it in different words.

Either within a same passage itself, or within both near, and remote passages.

And Logos refers to origin or order behind a thing.

And reasoning is one manner of origin and or order behind one's conclusions and assertions.

Disagree or study it out.

Makes no difference to me, other than the liberating effect of letting go just a bit more of my own logos, originating or ordering.

Prov. 27:17

I am merely pointing all that out for anyone so inclined to go the extra mile beyond each our own tendency to indulge in "well, what it means to me is..."

I'm sure tomorrow it'll be my turn to have a thing pointed out to me, by someone, somewhere.

Yours in Him,

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11, 12.

 

[Danoh]

A thought on doing a word study...

Often in Scripture, a word and or phrase will be found deriving its intended meaning not only from where and how it is being used, but in light of similar themes elsewhere (in other words, where although said same word may not be found also being used; the theme is similar; if not the same).

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[Clete]

I pointed it out.

What you choose to do with it is on you.

The various ways in which John 1 itself basically says the same thing prove your conclusion is your own.

What are you talking about?

You've said nothing that contradicts what I said nor that I even think is wrong. What are you even talking about?

Obviously, your approach does not take this simple principle into account:

That Scripture often repeats what it means by an assertion through repeating it in different words.

I readily acknowledge this and have known it for decades! There is nothing that John states once or a dozen different times that negates or contradicts what I have asserted.

Either within a same passage itself, or within both near, and remote passages.

This principle, while generally valid, is not iron clad nor universally true throughout scripture nor is understanding this principle necessary for understanding most passages of scripture. Most of the time, the bible simply means what it says as is the case with John chapter 1.

And Logos refers to origin or order behind a thing.

And reasoning is one manner of origin and or order behind one's conclusions and assertions.

Disagree or study it out.

I've studied it far more than you've likely studied anything. Did you bother to even read the article I linked too? NO!

Logos does not merely refer to something's origin. It's meaning is almost identical to the English word "reason". The word 'logic' is derived from the Greek word 'logos' but in English 'logic' often refers more directly to the rules of reason rather than to reason itself but the context is what conveys the intended meaning and as such the words 'logic' and 'reason' are often synonyms in English.

The suffix "ology" is also directly derived from the Greek 'logos'. Take the word "biology". You have 'bio' which means "life" and "ology" which means logic or understanding or study of. Biology is the logic of life and those things which pertain to biology are said to be biological. It's just two forms of the same word and the same idea. Logos is logic. There is no doubt about it. It's not even debatable. That is what the word means.

As, LOGICALLY speaking, all effects have causes, and as God is the original/uncaused cause, then it stands to REASON and is quite accurate to say that God the Son is the beginning of all thing, which John chapter one states directly but that is not the fullness of John's statement and any first century reader would have clearly understood that intuitively. The ONLY reason you don't is because of the way the King James Bible was translated.

Makes no difference to me, other than the liberating effect of letting go just a bit more of my own logos, originating or ordering.

For "letting go of your own logos" read, "letting go of your own mind". Who's mind would do you propose we use and how would you propose to accomplish doing so.

You'll find that you cannot do one without contradicting the other. Doubt me? Try it! Explain to me in as much detail as possible just how it is you go about letting go of your own mind. What you'll find yourself doing is using your mind to do it. It is the simplest of self-defeating stupidities that Christians (and Buddhists and Hindus and Taoist) force their minds to accept as wisdom.

I am merely pointing all that out for anyone so inclined to go the extra mile beyond each our own tendency to indulge in "well, what it means to me is..."

I have no idea what this sentence even meant. You sound drunk.

I couldn't care less what a passage "means to you (whoever 'you' happens to be)" Truth is objective and while words have a sphere of meaning, they do have meaning and a coherent sentence, paragraph, chapter or book does not contradict itself nor is it's meaning so plastic that it gets to be defined by whoever happens to be reading it at the time.

I'm sure tomorrow it'll be my turn to have a thing pointed out to me, by someone, somewhere.

Yours in Him,

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11, 12.

As I said, you've pointed out nothing that contradicts a word of what I've said, or if you have, you've done so in such an unintelligible way as to be meaningless.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

God never put on flesh. Try again.

Jesus Christ was an sinless independent human being who abandoned His life to God, His Father. Ring any bells?

Is God your Father?

This is a direct rejection of the gospel. You are not a Christian. That is to say that you are not a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. I have no doubt that you call yourself a Christian but David Koresh called himself the 2nd coming of Christ and spent half his day quoting the Bible and the other half having sex with kids. You can sit in your garage and call yourself a car if you want - doesn't make it true.

 

[Cross Reference]

That's not what I was militating against.

Then you need to be more clear.

 

[Cross Reference]

In Genesis 1-2, God's spoken Word became light, but God formed man from the dust of the earth.
In John 1, God's spoken Word became flesh in the form of the Son of God.
The spoken Word that became flesh is recorded here:

Psalm 2:7 7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.​

Not son of God did He become but "son of man". That is what His being made flesh is all about. Jesus was Son of God by conception. He became the redeemer "son of man" [intimacy], as God intended for Adam, by birth and obedience. cf Heb 2:10 KJV.

 

[Cross Reference]

You might want to consider that upon the new birth is the "Word made flesh" deposited in that one but in measure. . . a relationship to be "worked out in fear and trembling".

Nicolai,

What part of what I wrote are you disagreeing with? What part did I get wrong?

 

[Cross Reference]

It was never said of Jesus Christ that He was God's epistle - His letter to men. But that is what Paul says of those who are His.

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Cor 3:1-6

It is certain that those who are His have His Spirit. And that is reiterated more fully here :

To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Colossians 1:27

Christ in you certainly speaks of the Holy Spirit and of the Son. But one is the testimony of the other in the sense that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us (Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25). But that does not negate Him being in us. Just as He prayed to the Father :

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
John 17:21-23

And as close a relationship as Jesus here delineates (the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father and the disciples all being one in both of them) there is still - as in the Godhead - not an indication that one IS the other. We may bear the Word of God, we may bear the Spirit of God, but it is never said that we ARE that word made flesh. You say that of us, you necessarly collapse the Godhead into Unitarianism (or some variant thereof) and the distinctions in John 17 (and elsewhere) lose their clarity.

We are given the "Word of God", by the new birth, in measure, for the purpose of learning God's ways which is the process leading to son-ship and fatherhood in Him. You do believe that, don't you?

 

[Cross Reference]

Dear Clete,

Originally Posted by Clete View Post
The word in John translated "Word" is Logos. The meaning of the word is identical to what we mean by 'rational discourse" or "reason" or "logic". Indeed, the English word "logic" is derived from the Greek word "logos". One wonders why the tranlsators are afraid to use the nearly perfect English equivalent! In any case, the use of the phrase "the Word" in John is NOT referencing the bible. It is saying that Jesus is the incarnation of Logic.

John, in his letters is "referencing" intimacy with God.

God's ways are beyond our logic. Jesus would have told yu that because He didn't know somethings Himself. Our logic, yes, maybe but, beyond it. . . Unless you believe yourself God to have no need for the Holy Spirit to teach you?

 

[Cross Reference]

This is a direct rejection of the gospel. You are not a Christian. That is to say that you are not a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. I have no doubt that you call yourself a Christian but David Koresh called himself the 2nd coming of Christ and spent half his day quoting the Bible and the other half having sex with kids. You can sit in your garage and call yourself a car if you want - doesn't make it true.

Jesus was a sinless "son of man" 30 yrs prepared to take on the "Word of God" before being sent into the world. Guess what? He won the victory from his mortal flesh and NOT by being the Son of God! If I were you I would check your "logical" thinking at the door.

 

[oatmeal]

. . . . . . or was His humanity simply speaking from a divine disposition?

I sincerely ask without a religious agenda.

Huh, I thought I posted on this thread.

Jesus Christ did not exist before his conception and birth no more than you or I existed before our conceptions and birth.

God, having foreknowledge and the ability to plan and have successful outcomes, had Jesus Christ and yes, us, in mind before we ever existed.

After all God chose us, Ephesians 1:4, before the foundation of the world. He foreknew that we would believe and chose us because He knew we would believe.

God knew Adam and Eve would sin before they did and had a plan in place for man's salvation and redemption, He foreknew and planned accordingly.

 

[Cross Reference]

Huh, I thought I posted on this thread.

Jesus Christ did not exist before his conception and birth no more than you or I existed before our conceptions and birth.

God, having foreknowledge and the ability to plan and have successful outcomes, had Jesus Christ and yes, us, in mind before we ever existed.

After all God chose us, Ephesians 1:4, before the foundation of the world. He foreknew that we would believe and chose us because He knew we would believe.

God knew Adam and Eve would sin before they did and had a plan in place for man's salvation and redemption, He foreknew and planned accordingly.

God also lived with the hope they wouldn't, correct? Funny how He could do that, doncha think?

 

[Clete]

Jesus was a sinless "son of man" 30 yrs prepared to take on the "Word of God" before being sent into the world. Guess what? He won the victory from his mortal flesh and NOT by being the Son of God! If I were you I would check your "logical" thinking at the door.

I do not discuss Christian doctrine with sarcastic non-Christians who want me to check logic at the door. Welcome to my ever expanding ignore list.