What is Jesus saying here?

[Derf]

You do have to realize that the capitalization of "word" in that passage is an added commentary to the passage. The English translations before the KJV did not capitalize "word". Do the actual word replacements yourself.

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was the Father.

Make sense? No? Well, make your word replacements until they make sense to you and get back to me.

I've never seen a translation that used the word "father" in those verses. Your word replacements are getting the better of you.

As I mentioned before to Right-Divider, this makes the best sense when one thinks of the the word as being a part of God like Wisdom in Proverbs 8. God created through speaking in Genesis 1. The word is not Jesus. The word is God.

Ok. Then we are in agreement that the word is God.
[Jhn 1:14 KJV] 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,) ...
Your version says that God became flesh, and that's what I was saying, too.

Jesus is mentioned in verse 14. And no, he is not the word. The word of God is revealed through the human Jesus.

That's why I quoted such a large portion: because together they say more than you're willing to admit.

In verses 15 and 30 John the Baptist is not saying that Jesus pre-existed the world. John the Baptist is saying that Jesus surpassed him - See Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Ok. This is what Matthew said: [Mat 3:3 KJV] 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Here's the verse Matthew was citing:
[Isa 40:3 KJV] 3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

You do have to realize that the capitalization of "LORD" in that passage is an added commentary to the passage. The Hebrew translations before the KJV did not capitalize "LORD", because that's not the actual word that is used. Rather it was YHWH, which was the name God gave to Moses when he asked Him who to say sent him. Do the actual word replacements yourself.

I don't see any Biblical evidence of that.

Somebody's not looking very carefully...

 

[Hilltrot]

Are you asserting that a concept must be localized to a specific passage in order for it to be considered truth?

It matters what it being discussed. The more outlandish or incoherent the concept is, the greater the requirements for that concept.

You are saying that Jesus is God. That is completely outlandish and incoherent. Jesus is God is a logical impossibility. That is why after the Nicea in 325, you also had another in 381, 431, 451, 553, 675, 680-1, 1014, 1215 . . . It is an incoherent idea. In fact, that's what the Athanasian Creed says -"The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible . . ." In addition, it was outlandish. A human is God.

So, yes, using reason to try to cobble this concept together from several verses is a failure because the idea itself defies reason.

What I believe is clearly and coherently stated in the Bible. Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. Do you believe this? If so, why do you have such a problem with my believing this? Why do insist on my believing this other thing which by your own admission is hidden and not clearly stated in the Bible?

Why is it not acceptable to provide multiple passages that together provide a clearer picture of a concept that, when the verses are taken individually, make it harder to see?

Does not God hide things in His word, for men to find them out? Is it not doing so the glory of kings?

Is not searching the scriptures something to be done in order to find what is new and old?

Thank you for your admission that you believe this concept to be hidden and not clearly stated in the Bible.

I did just that, and you rejected it out of hand, not even considering the fact that I told you to not look at them as individual passages, but as part of a bigger picture.

I answered what you said those passages said. But I'll publicly examine the "bigger picture".

In Chapter 5, Jesus was returning to Jerusalem. He heals a sick man on the sabbath. The Jews got upset because Jesus had told him to carry his mat on the sabbath and started persecuting Jesus because of it. Jesus calls God his Father and this causes the Jews to want to kill him because this means he has his authority from God. In particular, they said he was not following God in supporting their interpretation of the sabbath. So, at the end, Jesus makes it clear that the Father is greater than him and that as his son, Jesus obeys God.

In Chapter 8, starting with verse 12, Jesus is re-emphasizing the first chapter of John that God is revealing himself through him. Jesus then re-emphasizes that God is his father, his power comes from God, and he obeys God. He then tells them that he can set them free. When they don't understand, he says that sin enslaves but a son is free. So, when the son frees, one is truly free.

The Jews then say that their father is Abraham. Jesus replies that if they were children of Abraham they would follow his example. (Just like Jesus was following God.) Jesus then says their father is actually Satan. The Jews then reply that Jesus is a demon. Jesus again denies this and states that anyone who follows him will never die. The Jews scoff at this saying that even the greatest prophets died - did he think that he was so important that he wouldn't?

Jesus replies that what he thought about himself didn't matter - the only thing that mattered was what God though about him. He then said that Abraham looked forward to the coming of the Messiah. The Jews scoff and say Jesus was not old enough to see that. Jesus replied that he was foretold before Abraham was born. (Genesis 3:15)

Onto Chapter 10.

He starts out with the parable of the sheep. He is the good Shepard. Those who follow the Shepard will live while those sheep who follow someone else will die. A good shepard sacrifices his life for his sheep while a hired-hand will not. The sheep who follow Jesus know him as Jesus knows his sheep. Just as Jesus knows his Father and the Father knows him. Jesus was given the attire by God to lay down him life and then take it back up again. The people respond by saying he is insane. Others defend Jesus.

The Jews demand that Jesus tell them plainly if he is the messiah. Jesus says he has already told them but they didn't believe him. (Jesus did tell the Samaritan woman in John but did not use the word Messiah to describe himself in John until Chapter 13. Jesus identified himself as the Son of God.)

Jesus replies and states once again that God is greater than him (not in position), he obeys God, he gets his power from God, and He and God have the same purpose. (see 1 Corinthians 3:8, John 11:52, and John 17: 11, 21-23.). The Jews pick up stones to stone him. Jesus asks why. They replied that he called himself a god. Jesus replied that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that as the Scripture called humans gods, however, he had never done that. He had called himself the Son of God. Jesus emphasizes that he obeys God. They tried to arrest him but failed and he gained new followers.

In all these verses Jesus emphasizes, Jesus < God.

Your final passage was in chapter 14. The chapter starts in the middle of the Passover celebration. Jesus says he will be preparing a place for his disciples. Jesus re-emphasizes the first chapter saying that people can see who God is by examining him. Philip hasn't realized yet that he can see God through the works of Jesus. Jesus once again says that he speaks the words God wants him to. Jesus will ask God for the Holy Spirit to be sent. (Once again Jesus < God). Jesus says when God raises him from the dead (Jesus < God), they will know that Jesus is in union with God. All who love Jesus will do as he says. God will love them because they love his Son. They should be happy that he is going to someone who is more powerful and better than he is. Satan has no power over Jesus, but he will obey God. (Jesus <God)

The passage consistently, thematically, and repeatedly expresess Jesus < God. Yet, you insist that they says Jesus = God without cause or reason.

But you say He was still a human, nonetheless.

Some humans are more important than others - no need to be jealous. (See the parable of the talents.)

Which apparently means nothing more than just another chosen human, according to you, no more different than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, or any of God's prophets throughout the Old Testament.

He was greater than all the prophets and he clearly explained how being the Son of God made him different.

Which means, what, exactly, according to your position?

Are you really not familiar with the second creation Paul describes? I'm tired and it's late but I'll go over it tomorrow if you want.

Which means that he wasn't special at all.

He's the Son of god - so, no.

Because you say so?

Nope, because the Bible says so.

Once again, the reason you see it as a problem is that you're not considering the context.

Hebrews 1 (yes, the entire chapter) is describing Jesus as God the Son.

That you only focus on one verse and say "it's a problem text for Trinitarians" doesn't make it one.

Just read the chapter, in its entirety. Comprehend what it's saying. Don't force your beliefs onto it.

Once again, you behave like a Calvinist, blaming the other person for your failure to understand or explain.

The first chapter of Hebrew is about how Jesus is greater than the angels. As mentioned before, this really does nothing to prove the "Jesus is God" idea which you so fervently want to be true.

Jesus existed before the creation, because He is the Creator.

Unless you're talking about the second creation, the Bible gives no reason to give Jesus this title.

I feel C. S. Lewis addresses this rather well:

When I finally got around to reading C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, I was not impressed. His ideas are not based in scripture but in his own philosophy. He is as ashamed of the Bible, as the upper-class Roman "Christians" were ashamed of Jesus.

In this case, he's trying to make an argument based on 20th century English language semantics and on an anti-Biblical Creed.

Or are you asserting that the reasoning that has been given by other

Nope, the Bible Cleary says Today.

And yet, Jesus was made so much better than the angels, which means he's more than human. He was given a name above all other names, and the angels worship him.

And Paul says Christians will command the angels which must mean Christians are God? How many persons does God have? Yes, as God is the head of Jesus, Jesus will be the head of everyone else.

Which righteous creature has ever accepted worship?

Was Jesus righteous?

Should any mere human be worshipped?

Jesus is not just any righteous creature. Jesus is the Son of God. You also need to realize something else. Christians look forward to the resurrection and as Paul says our new bodies won't exactly be the same. He wasn't specific but since these new bodies will be everlasting, human might not necessarily be the right word.

However, Jesus was in fact a mere man. The Gnostics were known to make fun of the "mere man" Christians.

 

[Right Divider]

You are saying that Jesus is God. That is completely outlandish and incoherent.

No, it's not.

Jesus is God is a logical impossibility.

No, it's not.

The scripture shows Christ's deity throughout. That you reject scripture is your own, personal problem.

Here is an example of the Lord Jesus Christ's return to the earth:

Zec 14:1-4 KJV Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. (2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Compare that with Acts 1:9-12:

Act 1:9-12 KJV And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. (10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; (11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (12) Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

 

[Hilltrot]

Was John, the author of the following verse, not recording anyone's words but his own, lying when he wrote it?

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. - John 5:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John5:18&version=NKJV

Does it say anything about what the Jews were thinking? Or does it give an unbiased reason for why the Jews in the passage wanted to kill Him?

Was John simply wrong in his recording of the facts?

Or was John telling the truth, that the Jews wanted to kill Him because He, saying that God was His Father, was, in fact, making Himself equal with God?

You're jumping ahead of yourself. First you would have to show that "making Himself equal with God." means that the Jews though Jesus was saying he was God. That's a huge leap and you've simply not provided any evidence to support that leap.

You're "begging the question". You're making the assumption that that leap in all the the questions you make afterwards. There are many verses to oppose that interpretive leap. Genesis 41:40 and 44:18, 2 Corinthians 11:12, Matthew 20:12. What's even worse is that Jesus talks about his subordination to the Father throughout the rest of the Chapter. The questions would be a great argument if you weren't begging the question when you asked them.

What, specifically, did they say?

"Are they right? Well, kinda yes and kinda no."

Just because you don't like what was said about passages in scripture, doesn't mean that a person is twisting the scripture to say something else.

Not at all. They point to a passage where Peter says Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and they use it to say that Jesus was acknowlging that he was God. That is textbook example of twisting a passage.

Listen to it again. Don't jump to conclusions. Comprehend what the nice lady is saying.

I comprehended it quite nicely and ripped it to shreds line by line.

Why do you assume it was deceitful?

Jesus clearly states that he can do nothing alone. They left out a troublesome passage.

Because you say so?

No, because Jesus says so.

There is no use of the word "God" in verse 19. There IS, however, "Father" and "Son."

So, the Father is not God? Well, this belief of yours makes things interesting. Can you explain your belief that the Father is not God?

Within the Godhead, the Father (who is God), is the source of the Son's (who is God) power.

Well, now you just can't make up your mind. Either what I said was ok since the Father is God or what I said is not ok because the Father is not God. Otherwise reason is tossed out and anything not explicitly said in the Bible cannot be used. Which means I would win the argument.

That doesn't make the Son not God. Nor does it make only the Father "God."

Now you're saying the Father is not "God"?

I will address the rest in another post later.

I look forward to it.

 

[Hilltrot]

You ignored the link that I posted which provided an explanation.

Here it is again:

How is the Father Greater than Jesus while also Equal?

There are often questions about relationship between members within the Trinity. John 14 is usually at the front of the list. I think James White is helpful here in his explanation. “You heard that I said to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

You're right. I completely missed it and I apologize. And looking back, that definitely does make my previous posts look silly and rude.

I would not say "positionally greater", but I would more likely say "a better circumstance." And yes, Jesus was definitely trying to point out to his disciples that his circumstances would be better after going to his Father.

 

[Hilltrot]

Who cares? You're wrong.

No, you're wrong.

Jesus said that He would raise Himself. You think that He lied and that God raised him. Truth is He is God and God raised Him (i.e., He raise Himself just like He said that He would).

No, I don't think he lied. I think he meant something different. John 10:18.

If God uses a human to get something done. Did God do it or the human? Is that human God?

Jesus was with His Father before Creation (i.e., He is the Creator). Your argument is with scripture.

Using the same interpretation which you use, I, Hilltrot, pre-exist my own birth. Ephesians 1:4, 2 Timoth 1:9. Am I God?

This is one reason why I won't use your interpretation of that passage.

I have no argument with scripture. Do you? 1 Timothy 2:5

Nope, Jesus is God.

No he isn't.

I showed you the crystal clear passages.

This is an opinion.

Your problem with that you disagree with scripture.

This is another opinion.

You make NO attempt to refute

Every passage, you have given, I have personally shown why your interpretation of that passage is wrong. I have not gone to outside sources. My passages have not been refuted by you nor anyone else. To say that I have made no attempt to refute is simply not true.

you just give your bogus opinion again

Yet another opinion.

 

[Right Divider]

No, you're wrong.

See post #83
https://theologyonline.com/threads/what-is-jesus-saying-here.54794/

 

[Hilltrot]

Or could any mere human die for the sins of the whole world? (no)

Jesus died to free us from sin. He explains how being the Son of God allows him to do this in John 8:34-36.

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus died to free us from sin. He explains how being the Son of God allows him to do this in John 8:34-36.

Read the whole Bible.... one man cannot die for the sins of the world.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus died to free us from sin. He explains how being the Son of God allows him to do this in John 8:34-36.

I will get to your other posts soon, but I wanted to address this first:

Psalm 49 excludes ANYONE who is not God from being able to redeem man from His sins.

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit. - Psalm 49:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:7-9&version=NKJV

You claim that Jesus is human, a created being. That means that his life has nowhere near enough value to redeem ONE man's soul, let alone that of all of mankind. Only God is valuable enough to pay the cost of redeeming the souls of all men, not just His, Jesus', own.

Only God alone could be the payment.

 

[Hilltrot]

I've never seen a translation that used the word "father" in those verses. Your word replacements are getting the better of you.

I gave it as an example. You, after all have been insisting on replacing "word" with "Jesus". For you, is God "the Father", "The Triune God", "the divine essence", or something else. I was not telling you what I believed. I was asking you what you believed.

Ok. Then we are in agreement that the word is God.

Just like Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is God. The word is not a separate being.

[Jhn 1:14 KJV] 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,) ...
Your version says that God became flesh, and that's what I was saying, too.

You must have either misunderstood me or I misspoke. Remember, for me, the word is not a separate being anymore than my hand is a separate person to myself. An empowered human is a better way of describing what I believe is happening in this passage.

That's why I quoted such a large portion: because together they say more than you're willing to admit.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Ok. This is what Matthew said: [Mat 3:3 KJV] 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Here's the verse Matthew was citing:
[Isa 40:3 KJV] 3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

You do have to realize that the capitalization of "LORD" in that passage is an added commentary to the passage. The Hebrew translations before the KJV did not capitalize "LORD", because that's not the actual word that is used. Rather it was YHWH, which was the name God gave to Moses when he asked Him who to say sent him. Do the actual word replacements yourself.

When you are quoting Isaiah 40, you are quoting Hebrew poetry. It has all the aspects of poetry and it is clear that a literal highway in the desert is not needed for God. However, for a messiah, it is. A road may be cleared for a King, but the king himself may not use it.

Somebody's not looking very carefully...

If I missed something, point it out.

 

[Hilltrot]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is!

No, it's not.

Yes, it is!

The scripture shows Christ's deity throughout.

Not a single instance of "Jesus is God" has been shown to me.

That you reject scripture is your own, personal problem.

I'm going to reiterate this - I believed Jesus is God until August of last year. I only changed my mind when I challenged myself to find it in the Bible. I found the opposite instead. This is not my having been set in my ways for years or being born to it, I have come to this conclusion through a careful reading of the Bible to try to find and prove the aspects of the Trinity I was told I should believe.

I do not reject scripture. I embrace it, even if I lose everything.

Here is an example of the Lord Jesus Christ's return to the earth:

Zec 14:1-4 KJV Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. (2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Compare that with Acts 1:9-12:

Act 1:9-12 KJV And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. (10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; (11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (12) Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

In Zechariah, the messiah is not God See chapter 9.

 

[Hilltrot]

See post #83
https://theologyonline.com/threads/what-is-jesus-saying-here.54794/

Just responded to that one.

Read the whole Bible.... one man cannot die for the sins of the world.

Matthew 9:8

 

[Right Divider]

In Zechariah, the messiah is not God See chapter 9.

You are what we call deaf, dumb and blind.

Respond to the SCRIPTURE that I showed you which said that the LORD will place HIS FEET on the Mount of Olives on HIS RETURN at the DAY of the LORD.

 

[Right Divider]

Just responded to that one.

No, you didn't.

Matthew 9:8

Stop cherry-picking and instead respect the WHOLE BIBLE.

 

[Derf]

Just like Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is God. The word is not a separate being.

If, as you say, wisdom is God, then you are acknowledging that there are at least two entities in the Godhead (I don't really like that term, but I don't currently have a better one), one of which was seemingly less than the other one.
[Pro 8:22, 25-26, 30 KJV] 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. ... 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. ... 30 Then I was by him, [as] one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him;

I don't personally believe wisdom is God, nor do I think Proverbs 8 is trying to equate wisdom with God (but you might appreciate @Clete's thread on the same kind of equality in John 1-https://theologyonline.com/threads/our-moral-god.55115/post-1781137).

Just like Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is God. The word is not a separate being.

You must have either misunderstood me or I misspoke. Remember, for me, the word is not a separate being anymore than my hand is a separate person to myself. An empowered human is a better way of describing what I believe is happening in this passage.

[Jhn 1:14 KJV] 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 Logos is God (and not a separate person), and Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, then God became flesh and dwelt among us.

You, after all have been insisting on replacing "word" with "Jesus". For you, is God "the Father", "The Triune God", "the divine essence", or something else. I was not telling you what I believed. I was asking you what you believed.

Not really. Jesus was the name given to the human the son of God became when He became flesh. I don't know what His name was before that.

"Father" may be an appropriate replacement in some cases, but not all. It works for "the word was with God", but not for "the word was God".

When you are quoting Isaiah 40, you are quoting Hebrew poetry. It has all the aspects of poetry and it is clear that a literal highway in the desert is not needed for God.

It is for a God who becomes flesh.
I think you've just proved yourself unwilling to read the scripture as it is.

 

[Hilltrot]

If, as you say, wisdom is God, then you are acknowledging that there are at least two entities in the Godhead (I don't really like that term, but I don't currently have a better one), one of which was seemingly less than the other one.
[Pro 8:22, 25-26, 30 KJV] 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. ... 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. ... 30 Then I was by him, [as] one brought up [with him]: and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before him;

I don't personally believe wisdom is God, nor do I think Proverbs 8 is trying to equate wisdom with God (but you might appreciate @Clete's thread on the same kind of equality in John 1-https://theologyonline.com/threads/our-moral-god.55115/post-1781137).

You completely missed the point. Should I try to explain again?

Not really. Jesus was the name given to the human the son of God became when He became flesh. I don't know what His name was before that.

"Father" may be an appropriate replacement in some cases, but not all. It works for "the word was with God", but not for "the word was God".

So can you explain what you believe about the first passage of John or will you continue to dodge the question?

It is for a God who becomes flesh.

Jesus disagrees with you.

John 4:24.

I think you've just proved yourself unwilling to read the scripture as it is.

Let's look at the verse after that - Isaiah 40:4. Did that happen? Of course not. It is figurative non-literal poetic language. There are other times someone is referred to as God but is not - Genesis 32:30, Hosea 12:4.

Isaiah 40 is poetry and not recognizing that is demanding that the Bible be something it is not.

 

[Hilltrot]

I will get to your other posts soon, but I wanted to address this first:

Psalm 49 excludes ANYONE who is not God from being able to redeem man from His sins.

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit. - Psalm 49:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:7-9&version=NKJV

You claim that Jesus is human, a created being. That means that his life has nowhere near enough value to redeem ONE man's soul, let alone that of all of mankind. Only God is valuable enough to pay the cost of redeeming the souls of all men, not just His, Jesus', own.

Only God alone could be the payment.

I was raised to interpret the Bible with a version of Finney's penal atonement theory. Your explanation is satisfaction theory which is similar. So let's say I owe someone $1,000. A friend of mine takes pity and pays that guy $1,000. I meet the guy on the street and he says he forgave my debt. I respond that he did no such thing - my friend paid the debt and I owe him nothing so there was nothing to forgive. In short, this kind of atonement theory denies that God can forgive.

I believe now that that my salvation comes through my relationship to Jesus. John 14:21. The reconciliation comes through love.

 

[Clete]

If Logos is God (and not a separate person), and Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, then God became flesh and dwelt among us.

The problem with this notion is that John chapter one very clearly teaches all the above! It explicitly states that "Logos was with God" (logos ēn pros theos) and that "Logos was God" (logos ēn theos) and that Logos became flesh (Logos ginomai sarx).

You seem to be imposing a contradiction where none actually exists.

"Father" may be an appropriate replacement in some cases, but not all. It works for "the word was with God", but not for "the word was God".

Under no circumstances would either "Father" or "Jesus" be an appropriate replacement for "word" when translating John 1. John was making specific reference to the divine reason or God as reason. The context, which uses terms and phrases like "light of the world" and "comprehend", makes the words "reason" or "logic" the two that most accurately communicate what John was saying to his original audience.

It is for a God who becomes flesh.

No it isn't. Just because God became flesh doesn't mean He isn't God anymore. He would have no more "need" of a literal highway than He ever had.

I think you've just proved yourself unwilling to read the scripture as it is.

I haven't been following the discussion so forgive me if I've got this backward but aren't you the one not taking poetic portions of scripture as it is (i.e. as poetry)?

Clete

 

[Derf]

I haven't been following the discussion so forgive me if I've got this backward but aren't you the one not taking poetic portions of scripture as it is (i.e. as poetry)?

Forgiveness granted.
Apologies for pulling you in mid-conversation, but thought you and @Hilltrot, despite coming to different conclusions, share some similar premises.

The problem with this notion is that John chapter one very clearly teaches all the above! It explicitly states that "Logos was with God" (logos ēn pros theos) and that "Logos was God" (logos ēn theos) and that Logos became flesh (Logos ginomai sarx).

You seem to be imposing a contradiction where none actually exists.

I agree with you here.

Under no circumstances would either "Father" or "Jesus" be an appropriate replacement for "word" when translating John 1. John was making specific reference to the divine reason or God as reason. The context, which uses terms and phrases like "light of the world" and "comprehend", makes the words "reason" or "logic" the two that most accurately communicate what John was saying to his original audience.

I partially agree with you here. Jesus was the name given to the Son of God born to Mary. We have no indication that was His name prior to that time. But the text seems clear that He existed prior to that time, as you pointed out so clearly in the previous quote.

No it isn't. Just because God became flesh doesn't mean He isn't God anymore. He would have no more "need" of a literal highway than He ever had.

Nor was John an actual road builder. But the way needed to be prepared in some form (calling for repentance) for the coming of the human which the Word became.