Jesusfollower,
Can you show me one scripture that uses the term "Unitarian"?
You wont be able to I assure you.
Just because the word "Incarnation" has been used to describe a biblical doctrine does not mean that the doctrine itself is not taught in scripture. This has long been used by Jehovah Witnesses to "muck up the waters" on the clearly biblical doctrine of the Diety of Christ.
I have another question, how do you translate John 1:1? Ill be waiting.
Does God foreknow future choices that we make?
-
_brody_in_ga
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: Richland Ga
-
_chriscarani
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:47 pm
- Location: Ft Collins, CO
I don't want to turn this into a Tinity debate but the unitarian site translates logos as "divine plan" and not "Word".
There are several problems with this. First in John 1:14 it says the logos became flesh, then in the very next verse John says "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me". He also says this several more times in verse 27 and again in verse 30 "This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’.
When John used the word Logos he clearly meant Jesus and Jesus specifically.
There are several problems with this. First in John 1:14 it says the logos became flesh, then in the very next verse John says "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me". He also says this several more times in verse 27 and again in verse 30 "This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’.
When John used the word Logos he clearly meant Jesus and Jesus specifically.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
WWMTLFSMM
-
_Jesusfollower
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: NW
As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.
Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):
speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”).
revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).
a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”). [16]
The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... age&pid=85
seriously bro, brody, the roman catholic church might also want to make you a cardinal.
Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):
speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”).
revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).
a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”). [16]
The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... age&pid=85
seriously bro, brody, the roman catholic church might also want to make you a cardinal.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Jesusfollower
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: NW
John 1:14a
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (NIV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word “became flesh” as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was “the Word in the flesh,” which is shortened to “the Word” for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word, but it is the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the “Word” in writing had a beginning. So did the “Word” in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: “Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner.” Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a “beginning” that they tried to alter the Greek text to read “birth” and not “beginning,” but they were unsuccessful. The modern Greek texts all read “beginning” (genesis) in Matthew 1:18. “Birth” is considered an acceptable translation of “genesis,” since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read “birth” in Matthew 1:18. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the “beginning” (genesis) of Jesus Christ.
In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which “became flesh” when Jesus was conceived. To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called “the Word.” We do not believe that such proof exists. There is a large body of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the “the Word” refers to God’s plan or purpose. We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward. God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the Word in the flesh.”
2. It is quite fair to ask why John would say, “the Word became flesh,” a statement that seems so obvious to us. Of course Jesus Christ was flesh. He was born, grew, ate and slept, and Scripture calls him a man. However, what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of the Christian era. In our notes on John 1:1, we explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written. At the time of John’s writing, the “Docetic” movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity (“Docetic” comes from the Greek word for “to seem” or “to appear”). Docetic Christians believed Jesus was actually a spirit being, or god, who only “appeared” to be human. Some Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank, but only pretended to do so. Furthermore, some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel. In theological literature, theologians today call this “angel-Christology.” John 1:14 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow pre-existent and then became flesh. It was to show that God’s plan for salvation “became flesh,” i.e., Jesus was not a spirit, god or angelic being, but rather a flesh-and-blood man. A very similar thing is said in 1 John 4:2, that if you do not believe Jesus has come in the flesh, you are not of God.
Hyndman, p. 113
Racovian Catechism, pp. 117-119
I see no connection in Johns proclamation, chris.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (NIV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word “became flesh” as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was “the Word in the flesh,” which is shortened to “the Word” for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word, but it is the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the “Word” in writing had a beginning. So did the “Word” in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: “Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner.” Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a “beginning” that they tried to alter the Greek text to read “birth” and not “beginning,” but they were unsuccessful. The modern Greek texts all read “beginning” (genesis) in Matthew 1:18. “Birth” is considered an acceptable translation of “genesis,” since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read “birth” in Matthew 1:18. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the “beginning” (genesis) of Jesus Christ.
In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which “became flesh” when Jesus was conceived. To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called “the Word.” We do not believe that such proof exists. There is a large body of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the “the Word” refers to God’s plan or purpose. We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward. God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the Word in the flesh.”
2. It is quite fair to ask why John would say, “the Word became flesh,” a statement that seems so obvious to us. Of course Jesus Christ was flesh. He was born, grew, ate and slept, and Scripture calls him a man. However, what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of the Christian era. In our notes on John 1:1, we explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written. At the time of John’s writing, the “Docetic” movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity (“Docetic” comes from the Greek word for “to seem” or “to appear”). Docetic Christians believed Jesus was actually a spirit being, or god, who only “appeared” to be human. Some Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank, but only pretended to do so. Furthermore, some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel. In theological literature, theologians today call this “angel-Christology.” John 1:14 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow pre-existent and then became flesh. It was to show that God’s plan for salvation “became flesh,” i.e., Jesus was not a spirit, god or angelic being, but rather a flesh-and-blood man. A very similar thing is said in 1 John 4:2, that if you do not believe Jesus has come in the flesh, you are not of God.
Hyndman, p. 113
Racovian Catechism, pp. 117-119
I see no connection in Johns proclamation, chris.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_brody_in_ga
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: Richland Ga
Looker/Jesus follower,
This is my last post to you. If I want to know what another website has to offer, I will go there.
You completly ignored all the scripture references I offered thus showing yourself to be not interested in dialog.
Have you considered the words of the Apostle Paul
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
The above text alone clearly refutes your error.
Jesus was in the "form" of God. The Greek word for form here is "morphe". It means "1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision"(Strong's)
This fits perfectly with Jesus' own words "He who has seen me has seen the Father"(John 14).
And to make matters worse(for you), the Apostle Paul deliberatly applies a quote from Isaiah 45:23 in refference to the Father, to Jesus. " I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear"
Do you believe scripture?
This is my last post to you. If I want to know what another website has to offer, I will go there.
You completly ignored all the scripture references I offered thus showing yourself to be not interested in dialog.
Have you considered the words of the Apostle Paul
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
The above text alone clearly refutes your error.
Jesus was in the "form" of God. The Greek word for form here is "morphe". It means "1) the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision"(Strong's)
This fits perfectly with Jesus' own words "He who has seen me has seen the Father"(John 14).
And to make matters worse(for you), the Apostle Paul deliberatly applies a quote from Isaiah 45:23 in refference to the Father, to Jesus. " I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear"
Do you believe scripture?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
For our God is a consuming fire.
Hebrews 12:29
Hebrews 12:29
These statements remind me of second-century gnosticism. The gnostics forged "gospels" under apostolic names. Their writings affirmed that Jesus as a baby stood up and gave great orations before people.When the Word “became flesh,” His deity was not abandoned or reduced or contracted, nor did He cease to exercise the divine functions which had been His before…The Incarnation of the Son of God, then, was not a diminishing of deity, but an acquiring of manhood. [5]
The fact that Jesus, the Word, DID divest Himself of His divine attributes is evident in the following passage:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Philippians 2:5-7 RSV
The fact that He DID "cease to exercise the divine functions which had been His before" is obvious from His statement, "I can do nothing of myself. The Father who dwells within me does the works."
Last edited by _PTL on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_Jesusfollower
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: NW
Yes brody, I do believe scripture, and I have considered the the scripture quoted. I will ask you again, can God be exalted by God? To the Glory of the Father? what does that mean? Jesus called God the Father, so did Paul. Jesus prayed to the Father who is God, not himself. I think you are the one in worse matters here brody, it seems to me, 'if you have seen me you have seen the Father.' Is said and explained all through the N/T, Jesus always did the will of the Father and still does for that matter. "Not my will, but yours be done " Two wills there, Jesus and God the Father. Does that sound familiar?
I do not see your tradition as being supported by scripture. And by the way, the people you keep attacking are backed up by many scholars throughout history even to this day, people like Origen, Broughton and Southgate, pp. 238-248, Buzzard, pp. 111-119, Morgridge, pp. 107-109, Norton, pp. 307-374, Robinson, Honest to God, p. 71. Just to name a few.
It is my prayer that you sometime in your life you will study this subject, to the end that your relationship with God and his wonderful glorious Son increases. What is this looker thing? taking a stab at my person? Mr. excellent Christian.
I do not see your tradition as being supported by scripture. And by the way, the people you keep attacking are backed up by many scholars throughout history even to this day, people like Origen, Broughton and Southgate, pp. 238-248, Buzzard, pp. 111-119, Morgridge, pp. 107-109, Norton, pp. 307-374, Robinson, Honest to God, p. 71. Just to name a few.
It is my prayer that you sometime in your life you will study this subject, to the end that your relationship with God and his wonderful glorious Son increases. What is this looker thing? taking a stab at my person? Mr. excellent Christian.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Quoting Allyn:
If it means that Jesus is the same Divine Individual as His Father, then the statement is clearly false.
Jesus prayed, "This is eternal life! ---- that they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Clearly two individuals here. Jesus addressed His Father as "the only true God. Does this not indicate that Jesus did not consider Himself to be "true God"?
If the word "God" in the statement "Jesus is God" means Deity, a generic reference to the "God Family" (of which there are but two members), then the statement is true.
At first sight, John 1:1 seems self-contradictory:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
But if "God" in the first instance means "the Father" and "God" in the second instance means "Deity", then there is no contradiction.
In fact, the grammatical constrution of the sentence indicates that the suggestion above is true. The first instance of "God" is prefixed in Greek with the definite article. The term "the God" where it stands alone in the
New Testament always refers to the Father. The second instance of "God" has no definite article, and the order of the words are reversed, that is:
"and God was the Word".
When that is done, it means that "God" was the kind of thing the Word was.
The same reversal is used in the New Testament where it is written:
"God is love" and "Your word is truth".
Whether this statement is true or false depends entirely on what is meant by the person who makes the statement.Jesus is God.
If it means that Jesus is the same Divine Individual as His Father, then the statement is clearly false.
Jesus prayed, "This is eternal life! ---- that they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Clearly two individuals here. Jesus addressed His Father as "the only true God. Does this not indicate that Jesus did not consider Himself to be "true God"?
If the word "God" in the statement "Jesus is God" means Deity, a generic reference to the "God Family" (of which there are but two members), then the statement is true.
At first sight, John 1:1 seems self-contradictory:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
But if "God" in the first instance means "the Father" and "God" in the second instance means "Deity", then there is no contradiction.
In fact, the grammatical constrution of the sentence indicates that the suggestion above is true. The first instance of "God" is prefixed in Greek with the definite article. The term "the God" where it stands alone in the
New Testament always refers to the Father. The second instance of "God" has no definite article, and the order of the words are reversed, that is:
"and God was the Word".
When that is done, it means that "God" was the kind of thing the Word was.
The same reversal is used in the New Testament where it is written:
"God is love" and "Your word is truth".
Last edited by _PTL on Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
JF,
Though I haven't really engaged much with you, I am curious as to what people are to make of this: the people you keep attacking and Mr. excellent Christian. ???
Though I haven't really engaged much with you, I am curious as to what people are to make of this: the people you keep attacking and Mr. excellent Christian. ???
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion,
You said:
"Jesus is Deity, just as much so as the Father is Deity, and yet a distinct divine Individual. So anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father, since He is Another exactly like the Father in every respect. "
You have impressed me as one who places great importance on logical thinking. Perhaps my mind is not on your level. I can not understand how your statement does not say there are two people who are Gods.
You say there are two distinct individuals who are Diety. An individual is a particular person, a distinct entity. If Jesus is such, as you say, is He not a God?
In the same way, the popular trinitarian talk of one God being three persons is difficult because a person is an individual. It seems to me the old way of speaking of God as three persona is more understandable, that is, contra "Jesus only", God can fill three roles simultaneously.
Good for us finite folk (who love to speculate) that Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" was acceptable to Jesus and commended by Him. Otherwise most of us couldn't be saved!
You said:
"Jesus is Deity, just as much so as the Father is Deity, and yet a distinct divine Individual. So anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father, since He is Another exactly like the Father in every respect. "
You have impressed me as one who places great importance on logical thinking. Perhaps my mind is not on your level. I can not understand how your statement does not say there are two people who are Gods.
You say there are two distinct individuals who are Diety. An individual is a particular person, a distinct entity. If Jesus is such, as you say, is He not a God?
In the same way, the popular trinitarian talk of one God being three persons is difficult because a person is an individual. It seems to me the old way of speaking of God as three persona is more understandable, that is, contra "Jesus only", God can fill three roles simultaneously.
Good for us finite folk (who love to speculate) that Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" was acceptable to Jesus and commended by Him. Otherwise most of us couldn't be saved!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean