rrobs
Well-Known Member
I believe I understand what you mean. I think most people would come to the same conclusion as myself regarding what you said. Why? Because you revealed your thoughts by speaking words.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.[/s]
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…”
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
In such references, is clement referring to their faith in “the Word of God” as faith in “Jesus” or faith in the “gospel” which Jesus taught?
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
Words have meaning. While it is true, as you said, that no two people see things exactly alike, they do see them enough to read the bus schedule and be at the stop when the bus is scheduled to arrive. For some to read Jesus as God and others to read he is not God, might be akin to two people reading the same schedule and one person says the bus arrives at 6:00 AM while the other says it will arrive at 9:00 PM. I mean it's one or the other. It can't be both.
In short, I propose that there is nothing in the scriptures (composed of words we all pretty much understand) that would cause such a wide variation of meanings. I further propose that tradition, when accepted instead of the scriptures, is the reason for 40,000+ different denominations. Not that have a corner on truth or possess the keys for the "real" Bible. I don't, but I do happen to know the guy that does, i.e., Jesus. If he says he is the son of God then he is the son of God. It doesn't matter that tradition calls him God the Son. The fact is, such an appellation is completely absent from the scriptures theselves.
God bless