The Trinity

[JLB]

Friend, I have received the baptism of the Spirit, and please reread my entire post.

Ephesians 4:5 (NASB):
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism”

Greek Text (Nestle-Aland 28th Edition):
εἷς κύριος, μία πίστις, ἓν βάπτισμα

Key Greek Words:
εἷς κύριος – one Lord (εἷς = one [masc.]; κύριος = Lord, Master)

μία πίστις – one faith (μία = one [fem.]; πίστις = faith, belief, trust)

ἓν βάπτισμα – one baptism (ἓν = one [neut.]; βάπτισμα = baptism

Context:
This verse is part of a larger unit, Ephesians 4:1–6, which emphasizes unity in the body of Christ. Paul lists seven unifying elements of the faith: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

So please, I want to have a discussion with others going through the same experience as I am and not the underlying nuance that I'm "missing something"

Don't "dissect" my post and miss the context, please.

J.

Amen. The context is unity. Paul is emphasizing the unity of one.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:4-6

The baptism Paul has in mind is the common baptism all believers undergo by which we all are baptized into one body; the body of Christ.

Paul emphasizes this same idea of the unity of one to the Church in Corinth.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:13

• one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all

However, by saying one baptism, Paul is certainly not referring to one (singular) baptism, but the one baptism by which we are unified together in the body of Christ, though we are many members with many different functions.


Paul teaches us plainly and contextually with the same frame of mind from
1 Corinthians 12, he had already established this truth about the different baptisms.

Paul teaches us that there are three distinct and different baptisms with three distinct and different baptizers. He does this by using his ability to convey spiritual truth, through the use of types and shadows from the Old Testament, much like the Passover lamb was a type of Christ, foreshadowing His sacrifice on the cross during the Passover.


Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2

• all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

Into Moses corresponds to being baptized into Christ whereas the Holy Spirit is the Baptizer.

In the cloud corresponds to being baptized with the Holy Spirit, whereas Jesus is the Baptizer.

In the sea corresponds to water baptism, whereas John the Baptist or human beings are the baptizers.


Three different baptisms performed by three different baptizers.


Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Hebrews 6:12

 

[Johann!@#]

Amen. The context is unity. Paul is emphasizing the unity of one.

Not More than One Baptism
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).

These verses contain “the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3), and these seven truths are to unite believers, members of the Church.

First, there is “one Body.” There is one singular Church for this current dispensation of grace. Though there are many different denominations and countless local assemblies in the world, there is only one Body. The one Body is the one true Church, the universal body of believers of this present age. It is made up of anyone and everyone who has trusted the gospel of the grace of God, that Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Eph. 1:12-13).

Second, there is “one Spirit.” There are not separate Spirits or different Spirits that indwell the many members of the one Body, but the same Spirit. One Spirit, the Holy Spirit, indwells the Church as a whole and every individual in it (Eph. 2:22).

Third, there is “one hope of your calling.” We who are in the Church do not have different hopes; we all have the same hope of heaven (Eph. 2:6). There is a different hope held out in the Bible for Israel: an everlasting kingdom on the earth. However, our one hope and eternal calling in Christ is heaven.

Fourth, there is “one Lord.” The same Lord over you is the same Lord over me and all of us in the Church: the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Head of the Body (Eph. 1:22-23), and we are each called to submit to Him and His loving Lordship.

Fifth, there is “one faith.” We do not follow multiple or different faiths. There is not one faith for one part of the Body and another faith for a different part of the Body. There are other faiths to be found in the Bible that were to be followed and obeyed in the past, however. For example, for 1500 years, in order to be accepted of God, Israel was required to trust and obey the law. However, in the dispensation of grace, there is one faith, one body of truth for us to trust and follow: the faith that was committed to the Apostle Paul for the Church under grace (Eph. 3:1-9).

Sixth, there is “one baptism.” There are multiple baptisms taught in the Bible: the baptisms and washings required under the law, the water baptism of John the Baptist, the water baptism of Peter at Pentecost, and numerous spiritual baptisms. However, in the dispensation of grace, there is one baptism, the baptism that the Holy Spirit performs at our salvation (1 Cor. 12:13).

Seventh, there is “one God and Father of all” of the Body. There is one God in three Persons—all three Members of the Godhead being mentioned in this passage—and we all worship and serve the same God. God the Father is “above all” the Body, works “through all” the Body, and is “in…all” the Body.

It is important to look at the “one baptism” in light of the other six ones in the list, because there obviously are not multiple Bodies, various Holy Spirits, nor several hopes of our calling; there are not lots of Lords, numerous faiths for us to follow under grace, or more than one God the Father. There is only one of each of these for us. Likewise, there are not multiple or two different baptisms, but only one for the Church today. And this baptism is spiritual; it is a Spirit baptism.

“In Christ” is a blessed prepositional phrase and is stated frequently in Ephesians (Eph. 1:1,3; 2:6; etc.) and throughout Paul’s epistles. How does one get “in Christ”? The answer: by the Holy Spirit’s baptism. The Holy Spirit identifies, unites, and places us into Christ the instant we trust the gospel of grace.

We firmly believe in baptism. However, there is only “one baptism” today; Ephesians 4:3,5 teaches that the spiritual baptism is what is to unite us as the one Body of the Church today. The one baptism is to be what it stands for, proclaims, and causes us to rejoice in continually, because the truth of this baptism is an extraordinary blessing.

A Spiritual Circumcision
“In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11).

Colossians 2:10 states the wonderful truth that “ye are complete in Him [Christ].” In Christ, we are made whole. By faith alone in Christ, trusting His finished work, we lack nothing for salvation. Nothing is missing and nothing can be added. We are not saved by Christ plus something or plus anything. It is not Christ plus water baptism. Christ is all we need, and salvation is in Him alone.

However, our completeness in Christ which Paul teaches here in Colossians 2 is dependent upon baptism—the one spiritual baptism, that is. Having stated that we are complete in Christ in verse 10, Paul then expounded on that completeness.

In verse 11, Paul wrote, “In Whom,” meaning in Christ, we “are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” Being in Christ by way of our spiritual baptism means that we share in what was accomplished through His death. We are joined to His death and resurrection by the Spirit and receive the eternal benefits of His finished work, for example, “In Whom [Christ] we have redemption through His
blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14).

In our union with Christ and being identified with His death, we are “circumcised,” and this circumcision is “made without hands.” This is teaching that the moment we were joined to Christ by the Spirit’s baptism, a spiritual circumcision also took place. Paul’s explanation of this circumcision is found in the second half of Colossians 2:11: “in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.”

“The body of the sins of the flesh” refers to the old, sinful, fallen human nature which dominates and reigns over the unbeliever. But the “putting off” of this old nature takes place “by the circumcision of Christ,” or as the result of Christ’s death on the Cross and our union with it when we believed.

One [Unifying] Baptism

“Three boys are in the schoolyard bragging of how great their fathers are.“The first one says, ‘Well, my father runs the fastest. He can fire an arrow, and start to run, I tell you, he gets there before the arrow.’ “The second boy says, ‘Ha! You think that’s fast! My father is a hunter. He can shoot

bereanbiblesociety.org

J.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann, RandyK, donadams, Free and Fish153,

You seem to equate the Logos of John 1:1 with the personified Wisdom figure in Proverbs 8, suggesting that John merely employs metaphorical language rather than affirming the pre-existent divine personhood of Christ. However, this conflation fails on grammatical, contextual, and theological grounds

In the beginning was the Wise Woman Wisdom, and the Wise Woman Wisdom was with God, and the Wise Woman Wisdom was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made. And the Wise Woman Wisdom 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 and wisdom and understanding.

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Isaiah 11:1–5 (KJV): 1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

1 Corinthians 1:23–24 (KJV): 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Thanks Trevor, but I just don't understand the statement that God the Son "was contracted" into the womb of Mary. What does it mean to be "contracted into?" The word seems to have been used by you to replace the more natural "conception." .....
But when the "conception" occurs as a result of a Divine miracle, ie when God "conceives" His Son in Mary's womb, then it is a very unique kind of "conception"--it is the Incarnation.

The Trinitarian "incarnation" is somehow reducing a Divine Being into a very small addition to an ovum in Mary's womb and thus losing the role, status and activity of a Deity for the next nine months and also during Jesus' childhood. All of this is not very clear as most Trinitarians claim that God the Son is somehow fully preserved and his divine nature also preserved, but here also you claim that "God "conceives" His Son in Mary's womb". This term "conceive" usually speaks about the combination of both the female and male portions to produce a human, with human nature.

what do you mean Jesus's life started? Christ is eternal!
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

It says yesterday, not from eternity.

Apostolic Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D.
If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh) let him be anathema.

It is good that the persecuting power of the Papacy has been greatly reduced these days after the 1260 years of the power of the Little Horn of Daniel 7 have run their course.

That's the problem; it shouldn't. Jesus was asked, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (ESV). For him to answer, "before Abraham was I am he [the Messiah]," would be to completely ignore the question. But, he wasn't ignoring the question, he was answering it.

I do not consider it a problem. Jesus had stated that Abraham had looked forward to his day, the day of Christ, that it was the central focus of his hope and salvation, including the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection. Jesus more or less answers their question, by acknowledging their continued interest in his relationship with Abraham by stating that Jesus was the promised seed not only to Abraham, but also before Abraham, as he was also the promised seed to Eve, and that he was in the plan and purpose of God before creation.

the best manuscripts actually read "God only begotten."

Trinitarians will endorse the erroneous manuscripts and call them the best.

It is impossible to truly understand John's gospel without understanding that the Son has always existed. It's only that through Mary he took on human nature in addition to his divine nature (Phil. 2:6-8) and had the name Jesus. But, as the Son, there was never a time when he did not exist.

I doubt that anyone can understand this supposed fusion. Luke 1:34-35 teaches that Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father is his father and Mary his mother.

Jesus was NOT a CREATED BEING in any sense of the word.

Jesus was the firstborn of the new creation.
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

It seems to me that there are two named YHWH--one who was on earth (Gen. 18:1) and went to Sodom for the purpose of deciding judgement, and another in heaven.

Of the two that are called Yahweh in Zechariah 3, one is identified by Jude as Michael the Archangel who spoke and acted on behalf of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again Johann, RandyK, donadams, Free and Fish153,

In the beginning was the Wise Woman Wisdom, and the Wise Woman Wisdom was with God, and the Wise Woman Wisdom was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made. And the Wise Woman Wisdom 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 and wisdom and understanding.

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

You didn't pose this matter directly to me, but I can immediately see the problem with this. Someone else properly mentioned that "Wisdom personified" is not the same thing as identifying the "Logos" or "Word of God" in the flesh.

"Wisdom personified" is only identifying a single attribute of God's Word. The Word of God made flesh, namely, Jesus, was "filled with wisdom," but this shows how a man can utilize his access to God's wisdom.

In the case of Jesus, he natively had access to God's wisdom precisely because he was the "Word made flesh." As such, he still had to be "filled with wisdom" spiritually, and then use his human volition to apply it.

The Trinitarian "incarnation" is somehow reducing a Divine Being into a very small addition to an ovum in Mary's womb and thus losing the role, status and activity of a Deity for the next nine months and also during Jesus' childhood. All of this is not very clear as most Trinitarians claim that God the Son is somehow fully preserved and his divine nature also preserved, but here also you claim that "God "conceives" His Son in Mary's womb". This term "conceive" usually speaks about the combination of both the female and male portions to produce a human, with human nature.

Yes, Jesus in being conceived in the virgin womb of Mary did not remove the transcendent aspect of Diety, but rather, reduced the revelation of God for the isolated purpose of showing Him as a man. Yes, Jesus became a form of God in human flesh without sacrificing God's attributes as an infinite Being, or what you call "preserving fully both his human and divine natures."

"Conception" is understood to be the procreation of a human being, regardless of whether the proper ingredients are there, if only by miracle both are there. To require both male and female contributions argues against the record of this special "conception" via the virgin Mary. So, the word "conception" is being used as Christians are applying the word, and not by your own limitation on how the word can be used, requiring both male and female ingredients.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again RandyK,

In the case of Jesus, he natively had access to God's wisdom precisely because he was the "Word made flesh." As such, he still had to be "filled with wisdom" spiritually, and then use his human volition to apply it.

Before the supposed incarnation, when he was supposedly God the Son in heaven, was there any limitations for him to use Wisdom. Did he lose this attribute and have to start again, or did he during his youth have two minds, one developing wisdom, the other fully Divine and hence full of wisdom?

Yes, Jesus in being conceived in the virgin womb of Mary did not remove the transcendent aspect of Diety, but rather, reduced the revelation of God for the isolated purpose of showing Him as a man. Yes, Jesus became a form of God in human flesh without sacrificing God's attributes as an infinite Being, or what you call "preserving fully both his human and divine natures."

Perhaps you are unsuccessfully trying to answer what I have asked above.

"Conception" is understood to be the procreation of a human being, regardless of whether the proper ingredients are there, if only by miracle both are there. To require both male and female contributions argues against the record of this special "conception" via the virgin Mary. So, the word "conception" is being used as Christians are applying the word, and not by your own limitation on how the word can be used, requiring both male and female ingredients.

What occurred was definitely a miracle, but neither Matthew 1:20-21 or Luke 1:34-35 give any hint or allow the Trinitarian perspective of an incarnation of God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor
?

 

[Johann!@#]

In the beginning was the Wise Woman Wisdom, and the Wise Woman Wisdom was with God, and the Wise Woman Wisdom was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by her; and without her was not any thing made that was made. And the Wise Woman Wisdom 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 and wisdom and understanding.

Yup, you are something TrevorL--

Gnostic Sects (1st–3rd centuries A.D.)
Key Examples: Valentinianism, Sethian Gnosticism, Basilideans

Doctrine: Many Gnostics personified Sophia (Greek: σοφία, "Wisdom") as a female aeon or emanation of the divine pleroma who either fell from the divine realm or participated in creation in a flawed or limited way.

Relation to John 1: Some Gnostic sects reinterpreted John 1 with Sophia as the creative force or "Mother" figure rather than the Logos being Christ. These groups often split the divine Word (Logos) and Wisdom (Sophia) into separate metaphysical entities, sometimes assigning Sophia a redemptive or tragic role.

Primary sources: The Apocryphon of John, Pistis Sophia, Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi texts)

2. Philo of Alexandria (1st century B.C.–1st century A.D.) -- Not a sect but influential
Philo used Logos as a divine intermediary but also associated Sophia with aspects of divine action and creation.
Relevance: Philo never feminized the Logos, but his blending of Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish theology indirectly influenced later groups (including some Christian Gnostics).
Distinction: For Philo, Logos remains masculine, whereas Sophia is abstract and secondary.

3. Some Feminist Theology Movements (20th–21st centuries)
Examples: Certain strands of liberal feminist theology, ecofeminist theology, and process theology
Doctrine: These often intentionally reinterpret God-language to be inclusive or emphasize feminine imagery for God. They may portray Christ-Sophia as an androgynous or female image of divine wisdom incarnate.

Relation to John 1: Some have deliberately rewritten John 1:1–14 to say “Wisdom was with God, and Wisdom was God... and Wisdom became flesh,” paralleling Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24.
Notable names: Elizabeth A. Johnson (She Who Is), Rosemary Radford Ruether

However, this is not a coherent theological system, but a literary/theological reimagining, often for ideological rather than exegetical reasons.

4. Theosophy and Esoteric Christianity (19th–20th centuries)
Examples: Helena Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner (Anthroposophy)
Doctrine: These systems blend Christianity with mystical or occult ideas, often reinterpreting traditional texts symbolically. They sometimes identify Christ with a “Cosmic Sophia” or divine feminine principle.
Relation to John 1: These groups rarely exegete John 1 formally but may read the Logos as a mystical archetype and see Sophia as its feminine balance.

5. New Age Spirituality & Christian Mysticism (modern syncretism)
Doctrine: In New Age and mystical writings, Wisdom (Sophia) is often treated as a divine archetype, cosmic principle, or universal mother. Some reword John 1 to reflect Sophia as creator and redeemer.
Relation to John 1: Typically symbolic and poetic, not exegetical. Influenced by Jungian psychology, goddess worship, or panentheistic views.

6. Unitarian Universalists and Liberal Protestantism (select branches)
Some liberal theologians within these groups have recast John 1 using inclusive or feminist language.
Relation to John 1: While not widespread, these revisions reflect a theological agenda more than fidelity to Greek syntax or historic Christian doctrine.

7. Modern "Sophianic" Christian Sects (rare and fringe)
Some ultra-liberal Christian sects or mystical cults--such as Sophian Gnostics or “Wisdom Christianity” networks--explicitly rewrite texts like John 1 to include a feminized Logos/Sophia figure. These are fringe movements not recognized by any historic Christian tradition.

Summary Table
Group/Sect Interprets Logos as Sophia? Uses John 1 with feminine imagery? Orthodox Christology?
Gnostic sects Yes Yes No
Philo of Alexandria Partially No N/A (non-Christian)
Feminist Theology Sometimes Yes No (heterodox)
Theosophy / Esoterics Yes Yes No
New Age Spirituality Yes Symbolically No
Liberal Protestantism (some) Sometimes Sometimes Varied
Unitarian Universalists (some) Sometimes Sometimes No

Please don't respond, I am really not interested.

J.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann,

Yup, you are something @TrevorL--
.....
Please don't respond, I am really not interested.

You may not be interested in my response, but your false accusation needs to be promptly and strongly rejected. I do not believe in a pre-existent Being called Sophia, and I do not believe that The Logos of John 1:1 or the Wise Woman WISDOM of Proverbs 8 were pre-existent Beings.

You seem to have a wealth (perhaps the wrong word - more like much rubbish) of resources and you like to misapply them. I am the senior librarian for our meeting and have a much greater amount of print and electronic resources in my private collection, but part of my responsibility is to use these wisely, not only for my meeting, but also when dealing with the many and varied people and topics on various forums..

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Johann!@#]

You may not be interested in my response, but your false accusation needs to be promptly and strongly rejected. I do not believe in a pre-existent Being called Sophia, and I do not believe that The Logos of John 1:1 or the Wise Woman WISDOM of Proverbs 8 were pre-existent Beings.

I said do not respond TrevorL

Thread 'The Trinity'

Apr 10, 2024

The Trinity of God Part 1​

Definition of the Trinity

The Trinity of God is a doctrine that is fundamental to the Christian faith; belief or disbelief in the Trinity marks orthodoxy from unorthodoxy. Human reason, however, cannot fathom the Trinity, nor can logic explain it, and, although the word itself is not found in the Scriptures, the doctrine is plainly taught in the Scriptures. The early church was forced to study the subject and affirm its truth because of the heretical teachings that arose opposing the Trinity.

The term Trinity is not the best one because...

• electedbyHim
• Replies: 762
• Forum: Trinitarianism

• 
• 

I’m not concerned with titles, credentials, or the size of your resource library...what matters is the ability to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Based on your reaction, it’s clear this struck a nerve, and perhaps you recognize that the exegesis being offered here falls short.

It reminds me again that it’s entirely possible to accumulate doctrinal knowledge “puffed up” in the mind (1 Corinthians 8:1), while lacking the spiritual discernment and humility required to handle the Scriptures with integrity.

I’m not here to argue endlessly or have my time consumed with fruitless exchanges..“Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9).

If this continues I'll put you on ignore, pronto.

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

Greetings again Johann,

You may not be interested in my response, but your false accusation needs to be promptly and strongly rejected. I do not believe in a pre-existent Being called Sophia, and I do not believe that The Logos of John 1:1 or the Wise Woman WISDOM of Proverbs 8 were pre-existent Beings.

You seem to have a wealth (perhaps the wrong word - more like much rubbish) of resources and you like to misapply them. I am the senior librarian for our meeting and have a much greater amount of print and electronic resources in my private collection, but part of my responsibility is to use these wisely, not only for my meeting, but also when dealing with the many and varied people and topics on various forums..

Kind regards
Trevor

Your response deserves a direct and unambiguous correction...not because of personal preference, but because the integrity of biblical doctrine demands it.

First, the claim that Wisdom (חָכְמָה / σοφία) in Proverbs 8 is not a pre-existent being flagrantly ignores the clear grammatical and contextual markers within the text that describe Wisdom as present “from everlasting” (מֵעֹולָם) and “before the earth was” (Proverbs 8:23, LXX: πρὸ τοῦ τοῦ γῆν ποιῆσαι). This is not metaphor or abstraction-it is temporal and ontological language of pre-existence.

To reduce this to a literary device or poetic trope is to eviscerate the inspired description of divine agency.

Second, the denial that the Logos (ὁ Λόγος) in John 1:1 is a pre-existent Being is not only theologically erroneous but also textually indefensible. The phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος—"In the beginning was the Word"--uses the imperfect tense (ἦν) indicating continuous existence prior to and independent of the beginning.
The Logos was already existing when the beginning occurred. John could not be clearer that the Logos is eternal, personal, and divine (καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος).

Third, your distinction between Sophia and the Logos appears to stem from either a conflation or a disjunction rooted in reactionary theology, rather than a sober synthesis of biblical intertextuality. The early Church Fathers-such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria-frequently associated the pre-incarnate Christ with both Divine Wisdom (σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ) and the Logos, affirming their unity in the pre-existent Son of God. These were not mythical abstractions, but clear affirmations of Christ's eternal generation from the Father, in line with Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15–17.

If your doctrine denies that Christ is the pre-existent Logos of John 1:1 and separates Him from the Divine Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8 and 1 Corinthians 1:24 ("Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God"), then you are denying both the eternal Sonship and the Christological unity of Scripture.

This is not merely a side issue...this is the core of Christ’s identity.

"Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)

"I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was." (Proverbs 8:23)

"And the Word was God... and the Word became flesh." (John 1:1,14)

"By Him were all things created... and He is before all things." (Colossians 1:16–17)

If these are not descriptions of a pre-existent Being, then the words themselves have lost their meaning. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Next time you want to open your mouth to challenge sound doctrine, use the right sources in your library first.

You’re not correcting Scripture-you’re redefining what it plainly says, and that’s dangerous.

This isn’t a game of opinions or private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20).

If you’re going to speak on biblical truth, come prepared or don’t speak at all.

You’re mishandling the Word, and it shows.

J.

 

[JLB]

Not More than One Baptism
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).

These verses contain “the unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3), and these seven truths are to unite believers, members of the Church.

First, there is “one Body.” There is one singular Church for this current dispensation of grace. Though there are many different denominations and countless local assemblies in the world, there is only one Body. The one Body is the one true Church, the universal body of believers of this present age. It is made up of anyone and everyone who has trusted the gospel of the grace of God, that Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Eph. 1:12-13).

Second, there is “one Spirit.” There are not separate Spirits or different Spirits that indwell the many members of the one Body, but the same Spirit. One Spirit, the Holy Spirit, indwells the Church as a whole and every individual in it (Eph. 2:22).

Third, there is “one hope of your calling.” We who are in the Church do not have different hopes; we all have the same hope of heaven (Eph. 2:6). There is a different hope held out in the Bible for Israel: an everlasting kingdom on the earth. However, our one hope and eternal calling in Christ is heaven.

Fourth, there is “one Lord.” The same Lord over you is the same Lord over me and all of us in the Church: the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Head of the Body (Eph. 1:22-23), and we are each called to submit to Him and His loving Lordship.

Fifth, there is “one faith.” We do not follow multiple or different faiths. There is not one faith for one part of the Body and another faith for a different part of the Body. There are other faiths to be found in the Bible that were to be followed and obeyed in the past, however. For example, for 1500 years, in order to be accepted of God, Israel was required to trust and obey the law. However, in the dispensation of grace, there is one faith, one body of truth for us to trust and follow: the faith that was committed to the Apostle Paul for the Church under grace (Eph. 3:1-9).

Sixth, there is “one baptism.” There are multiple baptisms taught in the Bible: the baptisms and washings required under the law, the water baptism of John the Baptist, the water baptism of Peter at Pentecost, and numerous spiritual baptisms. However, in the dispensation of grace, there is one baptism, the baptism that the Holy Spirit performs at our salvation (1 Cor. 12:13).

Seventh, there is “one God and Father of all” of the Body. There is one God in three Persons—all three Members of the Godhead being mentioned in this passage—and we all worship and serve the same God. God the Father is “above all” the Body, works “through all” the Body, and is “in…all” the Body.

It is important to look at the “one baptism” in light of the other six ones in the list, because there obviously are not multiple Bodies, various Holy Spirits, nor several hopes of our calling; there are not lots of Lords, numerous faiths for us to follow under grace, or more than one God the Father. There is only one of each of these for us. Likewise, there are not multiple or two different baptisms, but only one for the Church today. And this baptism is spiritual; it is a Spirit baptism.

“In Christ” is a blessed prepositional phrase and is stated frequently in Ephesians (Eph. 1:1,3; 2:6; etc.) and throughout Paul’s epistles. How does one get “in Christ”? The answer: by the Holy Spirit’s baptism. The Holy Spirit identifies, unites, and places us into Christ the instant we trust the gospel of grace.

We firmly believe in baptism. However, there is only “one baptism” today; Ephesians 4:3,5 teaches that the spiritual baptism is what is to unite us as the one Body of the Church today. The one baptism is to be what it stands for, proclaims, and causes us to rejoice in continually, because the truth of this baptism is an extraordinary blessing.

A Spiritual Circumcision
“In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11).

Colossians 2:10 states the wonderful truth that “ye are complete in Him [Christ].” In Christ, we are made whole. By faith alone in Christ, trusting His finished work, we lack nothing for salvation. Nothing is missing and nothing can be added. We are not saved by Christ plus something or plus anything. It is not Christ plus water baptism. Christ is all we need, and salvation is in Him alone.

However, our completeness in Christ which Paul teaches here in Colossians 2 is dependent upon baptism—the one spiritual baptism, that is. Having stated that we are complete in Christ in verse 10, Paul then expounded on that completeness.

In verse 11, Paul wrote, “In Whom,” meaning in Christ, we “are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” Being in Christ by way of our spiritual baptism means that we share in what was accomplished through His death. We are joined to His death and resurrection by the Spirit and receive the eternal benefits of His finished work, for example, “In Whom [Christ] we have redemption through His
blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14).

In our union with Christ and being identified with His death, we are “circumcised,” and this circumcision is “made without hands.” This is teaching that the moment we were joined to Christ by the Spirit’s baptism, a spiritual circumcision also took place. Paul’s explanation of this circumcision is found in the second half of Colossians 2:11: “in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.”

“The body of the sins of the flesh” refers to the old, sinful, fallen human nature which dominates and reigns over the unbeliever. But the “putting off” of this old nature takes place “by the circumcision of Christ,” or as the result of Christ’s death on the Cross and our union with it when we believed.

One [Unifying] Baptism

“Three boys are in the schoolyard bragging of how great their fathers are.“The first one says, ‘Well, my father runs the fastest. He can fire an arrow, and start to run, I tell you, he gets there before the arrow.’ “The second boy says, ‘Ha! You think that’s fast! My father is a hunter. He can shoot

bereanbiblesociety.org

J.

• Your response deserves a direct and unambiguous correction...not because of personal preference, but because the integrity of biblical doctrine demands it.

There are three baptisms taught in scripture identified by the three different baptizers.

Here is two in one scripture so you can rest assured there is more than one baptism.

There is one baptism that brings into one body; Christ.

The Holy Spirit is the Baptizer. 1 Corinthians 12:13

The other two are found in Acts 1:4-5

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Acts 1:4-5

• for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

1. We are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13
2. We are baptized in water by man. Acts 1:5
3. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit by Jesus. Mark 1:8

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.


Millions of people today are baptized in water and baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Hebrews 6:1-2

• of the doctrine of baptisms - plural.

Paul teaches three distinct baptisms in scripture.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann,

I said do not respond @TrevorL

I understand that you want to dominate both me and also this long running thread.

If this continues I'll put you on ignore, pronto.

You are welcome to ignore me. But I am only really interested if you discuss Bible things of some substance and in my opinion this has been lacking on your part, and you are more interested in making pronouncements.

Your response deserves a direct and unambiguous correction...not because of personal preference, but because the integrity of biblical doctrine demands it.

This is an example of one of your pronouncements.

This is not metaphor or abstraction-it is temporal and ontological language of pre-existence.

Are you suggesting that there was actually a wise woman WISDOM, who was with God in the creation? The same woman who preached in the streets of Jerusalem.

Proverbs 8:1–11 (KJV): 1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. 4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. 5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. 6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. 7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. 8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. 9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. 10 Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. 11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

"Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)

You choose to ignore all that I have discussed concerning this verse.

Next time you want to open your mouth to challenge sound doctrine, use the right sources in your library first.
You’re not correcting Scripture-you’re redefining what it plainly says, and that’s dangerous.
This isn’t a game of opinions or private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20).
If you’re going to speak on biblical truth, come prepared or don’t speak at all.
You’re mishandling the Word, and it shows.

Another strong pronouncement.

private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20).

Perhaps you should try to understand the correct meaning of 2 Peter 1:20. A few other translations could help you here or a Bible Word Dictionary.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Johann!@#]

You are welcome to ignore me. But I am only really interested if you discuss Bible things of some substance and in my opinion this has been lacking on your part, and you are more interested in making pronouncements.

Are you a moderator here? Because what you are discussing is of no substance.

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

• Your response deserves a direct and unambiguous correction...not because of personal preference, but because the integrity of biblical doctrine demands it.

Not More than One Baptism
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).


A Spiritual Circumcision
“In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11).


A Spiritual Baptism
“Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12).


How Am I Crucified with Christ?
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me…” (Gal. 2:20).

Every believer can say, “I am crucified with Christ,” and it is due to the one baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This statement has past, present, and future ramifications.


One Baptism Makes Us One
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).


Typology and Identification
Romans 6:3–4 – “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death…”
Baptism is a symbolic, external identification with the death and resurrection of Christ.

The Greek verb ἐβαπτίσθημεν (aorist passive indicative) indicates an event that happened to the believer — not saving in itself, but reflective of a spiritual truth.

Colossians 2:12 – “Having been buried with Him in baptism…”
Participial clause (συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι) describes baptism as a visible representation of being united with Christ.

Not the Means of Regeneration
Ephesians 2:8–9 – “By grace you have been saved through faith… not a result of works…”

Baptism, as an outward act, cannot be the ground or means of salvation.
The thief on the cross (Luke 23:43) was saved without water baptism, confirming that faith alone saves.

1 Corinthians 1:17 – “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…”

Paul distinguishes the gospel from the act of baptism. If baptism were necessary for salvation, this would be a contradiction.


Didache 7 (c. AD 90–110) – Early Christian manual: “Baptize… in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water…”

Baptism was universally practiced and expected.

Baptism was never understood as optional, though it was never the cause of salvation.

Justin Martyr, Apology I.61 (mid-2nd century):
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true...are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.”

“Regenerated” here refers to the full initiation into the Christian life--not ontological rebirth by water alone.

So, to answer your rebuke to me-

Water baptism is not optional for a believer--it is an imperative command of Jesus and His apostles, an outward sign of inward faith, and a public identification with Christ’s death and resurrection.
It is not a requirement for salvation, but a necessary act of obedience for one who is truly saved.

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

I understand that you want to dominate both me and also this long running thread.

Why would I want to "dominate" you and this long running thread? I hardly post here.

You are way off on the doctrine of Christ Jesus, His incarnation and conception.

J.

 

[JLB]

Not More than One Baptism
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6).


A Spiritual Circumcision
“In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11).


A Spiritual Baptism
“Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12).


How Am I Crucified with Christ?
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me…” (Gal. 2:20).

Every believer can say, “I am crucified with Christ,” and it is due to the one baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This statement has past, present, and future ramifications.


One Baptism Makes Us One
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).


Typology and Identification
Romans 6:3–4 – “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death…”
Baptism is a symbolic, external identification with the death and resurrection of Christ.

The Greek verb ἐβαπτίσθημεν (aorist passive indicative) indicates an event that happened to the believer — not saving in itself, but reflective of a spiritual truth.

Colossians 2:12 – “Having been buried with Him in baptism…”
Participial clause (συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι) describes baptism as a visible representation of being united with Christ.

Not the Means of Regeneration
Ephesians 2:8–9 – “By grace you have been saved through faith… not a result of works…”

Baptism, as an outward act, cannot be the ground or means of salvation.
The thief on the cross (Luke 23:43) was saved without water baptism, confirming that faith alone saves.

1 Corinthians 1:17 – “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…”

Paul distinguishes the gospel from the act of baptism. If baptism were necessary for salvation, this would be a contradiction.


Didache 7 (c. AD 90–110) – Early Christian manual: “Baptize… in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water…”

Baptism was universally practiced and expected.

Baptism was never understood as optional, though it was never the cause of salvation.

Justin Martyr, Apology I.61 (mid-2nd century):
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true...are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.”

“Regenerated” here refers to the full initiation into the Christian life--not ontological rebirth by water alone.

So, to answer your rebuke to me-

Water baptism is not optional for a believer--it is an imperative command of Jesus and His apostles, an outward sign of inward faith, and a public identification with Christ’s death and resurrection.
It is not a requirement for salvation, but a necessary act of obedience for one who is truly saved.

J.

Please address which scriptures that I posted that teach us about the three baptisms and which scriptures you don’t believe are true.

• for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Acts 1:4-5

• for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

1. We are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13
2. We are baptized in water by man. Acts 1:5
3. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit by Jesus. Mark 1:8

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Johann!@#]

Please address which scriptures that I posted that teach us about the three baptisms and which scriptures you don’t believe are true.

• for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Acts 1:4-5

• for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

1. We are baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13
2. We are baptized in water by man. Acts 1:5
3. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit by Jesus. Mark 1:8

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

Is there something in my response you didn’t understand? Because if you had, I don’t think you would have replied the way you did--am I right?

J.

 

[Free]

The topic is the Trinity, not baptism. Please get back to the topic.

 

[Free]

I do not consider it a problem.

I know, and that is the problem. You should.

Jesus had stated that Abraham had looked forward to his day, the day of Christ, that it was the central focus of his hope and salvation, including the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection. Jesus more or less answers their question, by acknowledging their continued interest in his relationship with Abraham by stating that Jesus was the promised seed not only to Abraham, but also before Abraham, as he was also the promised seed to Eve, and that he was in the plan and purpose of God before creation.

Then your only possible interpretation of John 8:58 is that Jesus is saying, "before Abraham was, I am the Messiah." But, again, that makes no grammatical sense, all the more so since you deny the pre-existence of the Son. To say "before Abraham was," is to bring the question of time and chronology into view with respect to existence. That itself isn't an issue; it's straightforward what Jesus is saying with that--"before Abraham existed."

However, to then say "I am the Messiah," simply doesn't work. First, he didn't simply say "I was the Messiah," which would suggest that he existed as the Messiah prior to Abraham. It would be grammatically correct, but that is problematic for you since you deny the pre-existence of the Son.

Second, it also doesn't make sense since Abraham was looking forward to the day when the Messiah came. But if the Messiah was in existence before Abraham, then why did Abraham look forward to some other day and not accept that the Messiah was already in existence, or had already been?

Third, the present tense of "I am" in speaking of himself as "the Messiah," doesn't grammatically work with the past tense of "before Abraham was."

The whole point is that "he," does not at all work grammatically or contextually. Again, the question in verse 57 is one of age and chronology, that is, of existence. Jesus's simple answer of only "I am" fully addresses the question and doesn't suffer from any of the issues your position does--Jesus contrasts the temporary, previous existence of Abraham with his own timeless existence, as indicated by the present tense.

There can only be one reason why you want Jesus to have said "I am he" in this verse--because you know the implications of "I am." It would require a fundamental change in your beliefs about who Jesus is and who God is, and changes to core beliefs are the hardest of all. But, "I am" is what we have recorded by John, and his entire gospel supports Jesus's claim to have timeless, eternal existence, including 8:23.

Trinitarians will endorse the erroneous manuscripts and call them the best.

And anti-Trinitarians will call them erroneous simply because they make a stronger case for the deity of Jesus. The fact is that the vast majority of textual evidence has come to light after the KJV was made.

I doubt that anyone can understand this supposed fusion.

It doesn't matter whether we really understand it. The Bible says what it does in Phil. 2:6-8. We can't simply ignore that passage because we find something incomprehensible or incompatible with our beliefs.

Luke 1:34-35 teaches that Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father is his father and Mary his mother.

No, Mary has nothing to do with Jesus being the Son of God. He is the Son of God only because he is the Son of the Father.

Of the two that are called Yahweh in Zechariah 3, one is identified by Jude as Michael the Archangel who spoke and acted on behalf of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father.

What does that have to do with anything? You can't just go making random connections in Scripture because you don't agree with the plain meaning of a text.

 

[Johann!@#]

I know, and that is the problem. You should.


Then your only possible interpretation of John 8:58 is that Jesus is saying, "before Abraham was, I am the Messiah." But, again, that makes no grammatical sense, all the more so since you deny the pre-existence of the Son. To say "before Abraham was," is to bring the question of time and chronology into view with respect to existence. That itself isn't an issue; it's straightforward what Jesus is saying with that--"before Abraham existed."

However, to then say "I am the Messiah," simply doesn't work. First, he didn't simply say "I was the Messiah," which would suggest that he existed as the Messiah prior to Abraham. It would be grammatically correct, but that is problematic for you since you deny the pre-existence of the Son.

Second, it also doesn't make sense since Abraham was looking forward to the day when the Messiah came. But if the Messiah was in existence before Abraham, then why did Abraham look forward to some other day and not accept that the Messiah was already in existence, or had already been?

Third, the present tense of "I am" in speaking of himself as "the Messiah," doesn't grammatically work with the past tense of "before Abraham was."

The whole point is that "he," does not at all work grammatically or contextually. Again, the question in verse 57 is one of age and chronology, that is, of existence. Jesus's simple answer of only "I am" fully addresses the question and doesn't suffer from any of the issues your position does--Jesus contrasts the temporary, previous existence of Abraham with his own timeless existence, as indicated by the present tense.

There can only be one reason why you want Jesus to have said "I am he" in this verse--because you know the implications of "I am." It would require a fundamental change in your beliefs about who Jesus is and who God is, and changes to core beliefs are the hardest of all. But, "I am" is what we have recorded by John, and his entire gospel supports Jesus's claim to have timeless, eternal existence, including 8:23.


And anti-Trinitarians will call them erroneous simply because they make a stronger case for the deity of Jesus. The fact is that the vast majority of textual evidence has come to light after the KJV was made.


It doesn't matter whether we really understand it. The Bible says what it does in Phil. 2:6-8. We can't simply ignore that passage because we find something incomprehensible or incompatible with our beliefs.


No, Mary has nothing to do with Jesus being the Son of God. He is the Son of God only because he is the Son of the Father.


What does that have to do with anything? You can't just go making random connections in Scripture because you don't agree with the plain meaning of a text.

Simple love A.T. Robertson's exposition on this brother.


In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1.

But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.

Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence.

Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Jhn_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Jhn_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).

The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature.

The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence.

The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Jhn_1:1, Jhn_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jn_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12.

But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Php_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Jhn_17:5.

This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics).

The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Jhn_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God.

Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jn_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros.

There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mrk_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Jhn_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos.

That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Jhn_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.”

So in 1Jn_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Jhn_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

1) "In the beginning was the Word," (en arche en ho logos) "In the beginning (or origin of time) was (existed) the word," who "became flesh," Joh_1:14; Gal_4:4. Before I was, I was not, but-Jesus the Eternal Word, was (existed) before He "was made flesh," "of a woman." He is called "The Word, of God," Rev_19:13. He existed before all created things, and became their Creator, Gen_1:1; 1Co_8:6; Heb_1:2; Col_1:17.

2) "And the Word was with God," (kai ho logos en pros ton theon) "And the word was (existed) with (in association with) God," before He "became flesh," Joh_1:14; Joh_17:5. Nor did He rob God of any Deity or honor in existing, co-existing with Him from eternity, or originating in eternity, Php_2:6; 2Co_8:9.

3) "And the Word was God." (kai theos en ho logos) "And the word was (existed) in or as God," in essence of deity, in His existence, in His eternal being, before He became His "express image," in the flesh, Heb_1:3; Heb_1:8-10. This "Logos" was God's "only begotten Son," and His "first born Son," from among the dead, Joh_1:14; Joh_3:16; 1Co_15:20; Rom_8:29.


Micah 5:2 NASB – "His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."

John 17:5 NASB – "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

Colossians 1:17 NASB – "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

Hebrews 1:2–3 NASB – "Through whom also He made the world... and upholds all things by the word of His power."


We have access to reputable scholars but some refuse to study.

Keep up the good work Free

Johann.

 

[JLB]

Is there something in my response you didn’t understand? Because if you had, I don’t think you would have replied the way you did--am I right?

You never addressed the scriptures I posted.