chinu
chinu
It is impossible to find the "Truth" unless one find the "Sound"
There's "Sound" within everyone.
Find that "Sound"
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Word
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
There's "Sound" within everyone.
Find that "Sound"
Nova2216
Active Member
Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made 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.)
If we reject the word of God we reject Christ (our only hope of salvation). (Jn 12:48)
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Even a cursory study will show the the word "logos" means the thoughts or logic behind that which is spoken. As such, the usual meaning of "logos" shows that it is a thing not a person. How does a thing becomes a person? What was it before it became flesh, i.e. a person? Was Jesus a thing before he became a person?
Understanding that figures of speech are not meant to be taken literally, that they are tools of grammar used to emphasize something, could John 1:14 be a figure of speech?
If we take it literally then we have a thing becoming a person. I have problems with that. On the other hand, if we take it as a figure of speech, we can see that God used it to show just how perfectly Jesus represented Him and carried out the plan, the logos, God had in mind from the beginning. Jesus did correctly say he always did his Father's will, despite the fact that it went against his own will. I'm thinking of the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus asked God if there was some other way besides crucifixion. He asked that three times. He ended up saying, "not my will, but thine be done." If Jesus were God that wouldn't make any sense unless God has a multiple personality disorder. Clearly Jesus had a separate will from his Father.
I think there are very few who begin a scriptural study without already knowing Jesus is God. After that, it is a rather simple matter to find verses that support that claim. If that is accepted, it must be weird to constantly see God praying to Himself, asking Himself to do various things including obeying Himself and believing that He'd raise Himself from the dead. Apparently God granted Himself the power of judgment (John 5:27) and to sit on His own right Hand (Eph 1:20). The one really weird thing is that in the end He will subject Himself to Himself (1 Cor 15:28). How can these things be? How do they fit with the doctrine that John 1:1 says Jesus is God?
I perfectly understand the tradition of John 1:1. I also understand the power of tradition to make God's word of none effect (Matt 15:6). Either all verses say Jesus is God or none of them say He is God. If we think some say one thing while others say something else, perhaps it's time to reexamine our thinking.
I've given you my understanding of how John fits with the other verses that seemingly make it quite impossible for Jesus to be God. The other alternative would be to say John does say Jesus is God, and make the few verses I mentioned agree with that. By the way, I could give many more verses that would seemingly make it impossible for Jesus to be God. Here's one more:
1 Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
How can that be made to say Jesus (purportedly God the Son) is God? Looks to me like the one God is the Father?
Again, I'm open to John saying Jesus is God, but only if all other verses make the same claim. I guess the other option would be to just ignore verses like 1 Corinthians 8:6. I doubt there are very many Christians who want to do that. Something's gotta give.
God bless
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Correctamundo on both accounts. Thanks.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Very good points. I never saw the difference between incarnation and becoming flesh. Sure enough, they are two very different things.
If logos is taken to mean a plan (a legitimate meaning of the word) then all John is saying is that God had a plan in mind to redeem mankind if it became necessary to do so. Well, thanks to Adam, it did become necessary, so God proceeded to show Israel His plan via the written word, i.e. the Old Testament. Later, He showed the same plan in a person, Jesus (Heb 1:1-2). That plan involved another man regaining what the man Adam lost. It required a human being.
Remember, God relinquished His dominion over the earth to Adam. Otherwise He could have just come down right after Adam sinned, make a sing of the cross (or whatever), and make things right in an instant. But, not having dominion over man (man has free will), the only thing He could do was to convince some man to live a sin free life and then allow himself to be crucified. It took Him 4,000 years of herding a million cats (Israel
) to finally make His plan a reality, i.e., flesh as it says in John 1:14.Thanks.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Is the "Sound" like the "Force?"It is impossible to find the "Truth" unless one find the "Sound"
There's "Sound" within everyone.
Find that "Sound"
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Normally when a word or words can not be taken in a literal sense, it indicates a figure of speech. A figure of speech is a legitimate grammatical tool used to emphasize something. Since, as you said, a word can not be seen (as in a vision), Genesis 15:1 wants us to consider deeply the fact that God spoke to Abraham.
One can be a spokesman for someone without actually being that someone. I don't think simply saying Jesus is the Word makes him the word any more than the other way around. We need to look at all scripture before coming to a conclusion.
1Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
If John says that Jesus (supposedly God the Son) is God then how do we make 1 Cor 8:6 agree with that? Sure looks to me like it says only the Father is the one God.
John and Corinthians must say the same thing, either Jesus is God or he is not God. I gave you a way to make John agree with Corinthians that Jesus is not God. Perhaps you may want to share how we can make Corinthians say Jesus is God and thus agree with the assertion in John that the word was Jesus and therefore God.
In general, it must be weird to constantly see God praying to Himself, asking Himself to do various things including obeying Himself and believing that He'd raise Himself from the dead. Apparently God granted Himself the power of judgment (John 5:27) and to sit on His own right Hand (Eph 1:20). The one really weird thing is that in the end He will subject Himself to Himself (1 Cor 15:28). How can these things be? How do they fit with the doctrine that John 1:1 says Jesus is God?
God bless
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I think a key verse here is 5. It says we are to have the same mind as Jesus. Are we therefore supposed to think we are God?
I also think verse 11 is interesting. It says Jesus is Lord, not God (I trust you understand the difference between the two words). Would not that have been an excellent time for God to have said Jesus is God if that's what He meant?
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
What makes it's usage in John indicate it means "Jesus?"
We know the answer from that same chapter (the first chapter of the gospel of John) is "the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (many of us having heard it so many times in churches, if not by personal reading).
But, since this is a very diverse forum membership, here's the verse for those not inclined to search it up --
John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Because it says in John 1:14, the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth". Clearly, John is tying the eternal Logos with the human Jesus here.
If you understand that John was specifically making a callout to the Logos from Philo of Alexandria's teaching about the meditating principle between the unknowable God and the manifest universe, then you can see it means something much deeper than simply an idea or a spoken word.
He begins with that, but then riffs off of that by tying this Agent of Creation, the eternal Logos of God, the Expressor of the Divine, with the man Jesus of Nazareth. How God manifests his glory in creation, is the same principle manifesting that glory in the person of Jesus, according to John.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Look another way to think about this that can help is to realize we are not able to encompass God fully with our understanding.
viz --
8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
So...therefore some aspects are actual mysteries in the full sense of truly being above our understanding. He is that wonderful, is another way to put it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Below is an excerpt from an article on Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings that explains the difference between a Manifestation of God and an incarnation of God.
“The Christian equivalent to the Bahá'í concept of Manifestation is the concept of incarnation. The word to incarnate means 'to embody in flesh or 'to assume, or exist in, a bodily (esp. a human) form (Oxford English Dictionary). From a Bahá'í point of view, the important question regarding the subject of incarnation is, what does Jesus incarnate? Bahá'ís can certainly say that Jesus incarnated Gods attributes, in the sense that in Jesus, Gods attributes were perfectly reflected and expressed.[4] The Bahá'í scriptures, however, reject the belief that the ineffable essence of the Divinity was ever perfectly and completely contained in a single human body, because the Bahá'í scriptures emphasize the omnipresence and transcendence of the essence of God…..
One can argue that Bahá'u'lláh is asserting that epistemologically the Manifestations are God, for they are the perfect embodiment of all we can know about God; but ontologically they are not God, for they are not identical with God's essence. Perhaps this is the meaning of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospel of John: 'If you had known me, you would have known my Father also' (John 14:7) and 'he who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)…..”
Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings
rrobs
Well-Known Member
True enough, but is he tying them together by making them the same thing, or something else? Could he not be saying that the logos became flesh in the sense that Jesus was a perfect example of that logos, or plan? In other words, God had a plan from the beginning but needed a man to carry out the plan. God outlined the plan in the OT, Jesus read it and understood what it would take and took it upon himself to do it by his own free will.
Philo was a Jewish philosopher made it his mission to make the scriptures agree with Greek philosophy. As such, I don't consider him as a source of truth.
By the way, almost all of the attendees at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople were also quite enamored by Greek philosophy. Does that make them reliable as sources of truth? I think not.
Yes, Jesus is a perfect representation of God, but a representation of something is never the thing itself. Since Jesus perfectly represented God's plan, the logos, it was possible for John to say the plan became flesh. Ordinarily a thing, in this case the logos, does not become a person. As such John 1:14 must be a figure of speech.
Figures of speech are used to grab the reader's attention, to make them pause and think. They are not meant to be taken literally. In this case, John called a thing a person in order to show just how perfectly Jesus followed his Father's will. I may be mistaken, but I think that particular figure of speech is called a Personification.
Nova2216
Active Member
(Jn 12:48) is also saying the word and Jesus are one.
If one rejects any part of the word one reject Jesus.
It's that simple.
Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Matt 10:40,
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
If what you are saying is true, then Matthew says the 12 Apostles are Jesus and therefore God. Something's wrong there!
Jesus was a perfect representative of God. He was sent to make God known. He did that by always obeying his Father. Unlike the rest of us, he never sinned, and that despite the fact that he was tempted in all points just like us (Heb 4:15). If Jesus knew he was God, his temptations would be nothing at all like ours. I think I might react differently to temptation if I knew I was God.
As a perfect representative of God, it could be said that, "the word became flesh." One thing is certain, a word is a thing whereas Jesus is a person, so John 1:14 must be a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally. In this case the figure of speech is used to emphasize, to make us pause and think, just how perfect Jesus was in carrying out the plan, the logos, that was with God in the beginning.
God bless
Last edited:
Nova2216
Active Member
Is it possible this is what it is saying?
¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Rrobs said in the O.P. “The Greek word "logos" is used 256 times in the New Testament. As far as I can tell, with the exception of John 1:1 & 14, there would be few Christians that would say any of them refer to Jesus. They all are clearly seen as meaning a well thought out and reasoned communication using words, which happens to be the actual main definition in any Greek lexicon.
What makes it's usage in John indicate it means "Jesus?" Why couldn't it be consistent with all the other 252 usages and mean God's thoughts as spoken to mankind, that He had a plan in mind from the beginning which he revealed in the scriptures and which Jesus followed to the letter as per John 1:14?”
Hi @rrobs :
Written language at it’s core is symbolism. Written symbols have meaning and often a single symbol has multiple meanings which are often, not exclusive of one another. While the writer has their own meaning and context, the reader may assign entirely different meanings when reading the text. This is one reason a single bible may generate many different, conflicting theories regarding it’s meanings. It is more complicated when a single symbol is called by multiple names. For example, the messiah was called by many names
1) THE MESSIAH HAD MANY APPELLATIONS
A quick example is Isa 9:6 that tells us “his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (KJV). However, this simple quote doesn’t approach all of the appellations used for the Messiah.
He is variously called (KJV) Alpha and Omega, the Amen, an Angel, his anointed, Apostle, captain, Christ, Lamb, the way, the truth, and the life, etc. (I simply looked at a few of his appellations. There are many, many, many more)
2) “THE WORD” (ο λογος/the Logos) AS AN APPELATION FOR THE MESSIAH
Revelation 19:13 declares that “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.”
Jewish Haggadah uses this same appellation in reference to tradition of the creation of the world by the Messiah when it says the superiority of man is suggested because “He is the only one who was created by the hand of God. The rest sprang from the Word of God.”
Early Histories often use “The Word of God” in reference to the Messiah. For example, the History of the Rechabites (12:9a) says “To us the holy angels of God announce (both) the incarnation of the Word of God, who (is) from the holy virgin…”
While some references may be clearly meant to refer to the "logos" or the "word" as a specific appellation of the Messiah, The problem is that “the word (the “logos”) of God is NOT ALWAYS a designation for the messiah.
3) SOMETIMES IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL IF THE APPELLATION REFERS TO THE MESSIAH OR TO THE SPOKEN WORD
Clement speaks of the early apostles being reassured by the resurrection of Jesus “and full of faith in the Word of God, they went forth with the firm assurance that the Holy Spirit gives, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God was about to come..” 1 Clement 42:1-4
Clement uses both a reference to the "Word" of God and to the "gospel" or "good news" of the gospel. Are the early apostles full of faith in the messiah or in the gospel preached by the messiah. It's not clear in this case and either can be argued.
There are other examples where one can argue the symbolism refers to the messiah and not his message.
Similarly, when the apocalypse of Peter says “… all things come to pass on the day of decision, on the day of judgment and the word of God, and as all things came to pass when he created the world…”
Since “the Word” is also an appellation of the Messiah who created the world, does this reference refer to him? Or to the Gospel he taught?
My point is not to render an opinion or offer a "rule", but merely to point out that such references and distinctions are not always clear.
4) THERE ARE TIMES WHEN “THE WORD OF GOD” IS CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE TEACHING AND NOT THE MESSIAH AS A PERSON.
For example, when in acts 4:31, the disciples “….spake the word of God with boldness” it seems clear that this is in reference to speech and not to an appellation.
In any case, I like the fact that you are able to take assumptions apart to search them out in more depth. Good luck in coming to your own models of what these things mean.
Clear
φιειφυω
What makes it's usage in John indicate it means "Jesus?" Why couldn't it be consistent with all the other 252 usages and mean God's thoughts as spoken to mankind, that He had a plan in mind from the beginning which he revealed in the scriptures and which Jesus followed to the letter as per John 1:14?”
Hi @rrobs :
Written language at it’s core is symbolism. Written symbols have meaning and often a single symbol has multiple meanings which are often, not exclusive of one another. While the writer has their own meaning and context, the reader may assign entirely different meanings when reading the text. This is one reason a single bible may generate many different, conflicting theories regarding it’s meanings. It is more complicated when a single symbol is called by multiple names. For example, the messiah was called by many names
1) THE MESSIAH HAD MANY APPELLATIONS
A quick example is Isa 9:6 that tells us “his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (KJV). However, this simple quote doesn’t approach all of the appellations used for the Messiah.
He is variously called (KJV) Alpha and Omega, the Amen, an Angel, his anointed, Apostle, captain, Christ, Lamb, the way, the truth, and the life, etc. (I simply looked at a few of his appellations. There are many, many, many more)
2) “THE WORD” (ο λογος/the Logos) AS AN APPELATION FOR THE MESSIAH
Revelation 19:13 declares that “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.”
Jewish Haggadah uses this same appellation in reference to tradition of the creation of the world by the Messiah when it says the superiority of man is suggested because “He is the only one who was created by the hand of God. The rest sprang from the Word of God.”
Early Histories often use “The Word of God” in reference to the Messiah. For example, the History of the Rechabites (12:9a) says “To us the holy angels of God announce (both) the incarnation of the Word of God, who (is) from the holy virgin…”
While some references may be clearly meant to refer to the "logos" or the "word" as a specific appellation of the Messiah, The problem is that “the word (the “logos”) of God is NOT ALWAYS a designation for the messiah.
3) SOMETIMES IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL IF THE APPELLATION REFERS TO THE MESSIAH OR TO THE SPOKEN WORD
Clement speaks of the early apostles being reassured by the resurrection of Jesus “and full of faith in the Word of God, they went forth with the firm assurance that the Holy Spirit gives, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God was about to come..” 1 Clement 42:1-4
Clement uses both a reference to the "Word" of God and to the "gospel" or "good news" of the gospel. Are the early apostles full of faith in the messiah or in the gospel preached by the messiah. It's not clear in this case and either can be argued.
There are other examples where one can argue the symbolism refers to the messiah and not his message.
Similarly, when the apocalypse of Peter says “… all things come to pass on the day of decision, on the day of judgment and the word of God, and as all things came to pass when he created the world…”
Since “the Word” is also an appellation of the Messiah who created the world, does this reference refer to him? Or to the Gospel he taught?
My point is not to render an opinion or offer a "rule", but merely to point out that such references and distinctions are not always clear.
4) THERE ARE TIMES WHEN “THE WORD OF GOD” IS CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE TEACHING AND NOT THE MESSIAH AS A PERSON.
For example, when in acts 4:31, the disciples “….spake the word of God with boldness” it seems clear that this is in reference to speech and not to an appellation.
In any case, I like the fact that you are able to take assumptions apart to search them out in more depth. Good luck in coming to your own models of what these things mean.
Clear
φιειφυω
Last edited:
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You quoted verses from the OT, before Jesus died and rose from the dead. Since then things have changed.
Eph 1:17,
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph 3:19,
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Col 1:9,
For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
1John 2:20,
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
I could give many more like this. The reason Jesus came was to reveal the Father, to make Him known. God is spirit and therefore nobody could see him. But He revealed everything about Himself to Jesus who in turn revealed it to us. In the OT God revealed Himself by words. In the NT, those words became personified in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is all John 1:14 is saying. Hebrews says the same thing in a slightly different way.
Heb 1:1-2,
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Not a difficult concept and when understood we no longer have to explain away verses such as 1 Corinthians 8:6.
1Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
We either understand John in such a way that it does not make Jesus God, or we understand Corinthians in a way that makes another God besides the Father. I gave you my explanation of how John can be read in a way that does not make Jesus God and therefore agrees with the apparent meaning of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Would you care to explain that verse in such a way that it agrees with the supposed assertion in John chapter 1 that Jesus is God, that there is another God besides the Father? The two must agree somehow or the Bible is no better than the Harry Potter series.
Take care
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I think that, in principle, that may very well be the case. I'd have to think about it to be certain, but right off the top of my head, it sounds good.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Wonderfully, the old and new testaments accord very well once one reads fully through both. Wonderfully we are indeed in a new covenant. The "trinity" explanation is a way to attempt to get at or suggest or invoke or bring us to the mystery (a thing above normal understanding) that Christ is both distinct yet also one with God, both at the same time. Even though it seems contradictory. Even though we want to think in normal ways of thinking He is either beneath or equal, instead of both at once. You could say they are blended, perhaps, and that would be another wording to express the 'trinity' concept.