The Nicene Creed

[jocor]

'The Word' cannot be an 'it' because he is the God-man, not an inanimate 'it'.

John 1:1 (ESV) tells us that 'the Word was God' but there is no identification of 'the Word' with Jesus in this verse.

Precisely! He is being read into the text.

Are you aware that several major Bible translations that preceded the KJV say the "logos/word" is an "it"? Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible are just a few of the better known Bibles that read, "All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men" in John 1:3-4. That was back then when translators did not read the Son into the text.

That comes in John 1:14 (ESV), 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth'. Thus, the Word is the Son who became flesh.

That is quite a leap. The "logos" became flesh. The "logos" became Yeshua. The "logos" became the Son. However, you say the Son became flesh because you read the Son into John 1.

 

[jocor]

I apologize that I just now noticed this. Above you say, " I do not believe the word/logos was a second person until it became flesh".
Now it occurs to me, that perhaps you are saying, that the Word became a distinct person from the Father when the Word became flesh. Is that what you mean by " a second person"?

I meant the "logos/word" was not a second person distinct from the Father prior to creation. As I understand the "logos", it is the Father's wisdom, creative power, spoken words and thoughts, etc.

 

[Jim Parker]

I meant the "logos/word" was not a second person distinct from the Father prior to creation.

That is not what scripture says.
Scripture says that the Logos was in the beginning with God. (Jn 1:1) One cannot be "with" and "the same as" at the same time. That's like saying, "In the beginning, God was with Himself." That's nonsense. One can only be "with" someone else.
The scripture also says "All things were made through Him (the Logos), and without Him nothing was made that was made.. (Jn 1:3 NKJV)

As I understand the "logos", it is the Father's wisdom, creative power, spoken words and thoughts, etc.

Your understanding is severely flawed.

 

[By Grace]

1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
In Beginning was the word, and the word was before the God

You are not translating the preposition πρὸς correctly

πρός g: a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships—‘with, before.’ εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν ‘we have peace with God’ Ro 5:1; καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν ‘the Word was with God’ Jn 1:1;
παρρησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν ‘we have confidence before God’ 1 Jn 3:21.​

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 791). New York: United Bible Societies.

A study of history and Greek writings shows that the Greek “logos” was not used in that way. It means the “reason of thought carried out to maturity”. Yes Jesus is the fulfilment of God’s plan, but the word is what God said all His commandments not just the final fulfilment. The verse says “God is all life and that life (Jesus) is the light of the world.”

I appreciate your looking at the past, but I have two major objections about what you posted:
FIRST is that you are making an assessment, and you are not citing the sources, except in generalities. Plus those vague references from ancient sources are interesting, but they are nevertheless pagan, having no relationship nor commonality with the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
SECOND is you are not citing the text as it exists in the Bible. The God of the Bible is a transcendent God
THIRD is the fact that you seem to be using the Hebrew concept, "ha dabarim" to be an expression of God because both words are translated into English as "word"

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Are you a king then? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice.
Look carefully at this verse there are two statements. 1. I was BORN the MAN. 2. I came into the world, The second person of the trinity.

You are eisegeting here.
I can say that because even in English, you are taking something out of context, and I created an apologetic axiom, "Any verse taken from its context is a pretext 100% of the time" which has never been proved wrong.

John 18:37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him​

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Jn 18:37–38). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The words I made bold red, for this purpose, which Jesus said twice you seem to be ignoring, and that is a critical error. Purpose is a SINGULAR noun because it is preceded by the definite singular pronoun "this". What is the purpose to which Jesus referred" It is the answer to the question of Pilate, "So you are you a king?"

The fact that Jesus gives two reasons for that question is immaterial, and the dual reasons cannot morph the singular purpose into a plural purpose,

The bottom line is that there never was a time when Jesus was not.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever

 

[jocor]

Are you SURE that you are NOT Oneness?

Positive!

Do you believe in the Trinity as a valid expression of the nature of the Godhead?

No.

Let's cut to the chase: What do you believe is in error in the diagram above?
More important is your ability to express your opinion using Scripture to back it up.

The Father is not the Son - Correct
The Father is not the Holy Spirit - Incorrect (John 4:24; 17:11 - The Father is Spirit and the Father is holy. He can send a portion of His Holy Spirit to dwell in a person and to accomplish His will)
The Son is not the Holy Spirit - Uncertain - (Their may be a melding of the Father's and the Son's spirit before we receive it - John 14:23; 15:26 )
The Father is God - Correct
The Holy Spirit is God - Correct, but not a separate person from Father God.
The Son is God - Incorrect. The Son is indeed an elohim/theosjust as the mighty men of Israel were (Psalm 82:6), but he is not the only true Elohim/Theos (John 17:3).

 

[jocor]

Transliterated from the Greek NT to English, it is Jesous, which becomes Jesus in English. It should be no big deal. We know from the NT who he is - the God-man, Messiah, Saviour, Son of God, Son of Man, etc.

It is the insufficient Greek transliteration that has led to the problem. They have no "sh" sound in Greek, so they couldn't transliterate it correctly. They also put the terminal "us" on many on their names. The Father desires us to walk in truth. Therefore, it is a big deal for me to put away error and walk in truth.

 

[Jim Parker]

You are not translating the preposition πρὸς correctly

πρός g: a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships—‘with, before.’ εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν ‘we have peace with God’ Ro 5:1; καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν ‘the Word was with God’ Jn 1:1;
παρρησίαν ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν ‘we have confidence before God’ 1 Jn 3:21.​

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 791). New York: United Bible Societies.

Sorry for the confusion. The word πρὸς has the meaning of "before the face of" and indicating "in relation with."
Good catch.

I appreciate your looking at the past, but I have two major objections about what you posted:
FIRST is that you are making an assessment, and you are not citing the sources, except in generalities. Plus those vague references from ancient sources are interesting, but they are nevertheless pagan, having no relationship nor commonality with the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Being "pagan" does also mean "wrong." The pagan Greek philosophers created a language which made the discussion of complex theological concepts possible. John used such language when he chose the word "logos" to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ at John 1:1.

SECOND is you are not citing the text as it exists in the Bible. The God of the Bible is a transcendent God

I don't understand what you mean to communicate there.

THIRD is the fact that you seem to be using the Hebrew concept, "ha dabarim" to be an expression of God because both words are translated into English as "word"

I am not familiar with that concept.
[/QUOTE]You are eisegeting here.
I can say that because even in English, you are taking something out of context, and I created an apologetic axiom, "Any verse taken from its context is a pretext 100% of the time" which has never been proved wrong.

John 18:37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him​

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Jn 18:37–38). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The words I made bold red, for this purpose, which Jesus said twice you seem to be ignoring, and that is a critical error. Purpose is a SINGULAR noun because it is preceded by the definite singular pronoun "this". What is the purpose to which Jesus referred" It is the answer to the question of Pilate, "So you are you a king?"

The fact that Jesus gives two reasons for that question is immaterial, and the dual reasons cannot morph the singular purpose into a plural purpose,[/QUOTE]
PLease clarify; exactly what am I eisegeting?

The bottom line is that there never was a time when Jesus was not.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever

The God-man Jesus of Nazareth did not exist until He became flesh; until He was born of the Virgin.
The second person of the Holy Trinity is eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
So, there was never a time when the only-begotten Son was not.

 

[childeye]

There are H U G E logical fallacies in this statement.
The first is the assumption that in the case of a heretic, the opponents of Arius were not accurate in what they stated.

Thank you for the lesson in logical fallacies. However another fallacy is the straw man argument. It's when you frame the issue so as to appear to have refuted an argument, when in fact, the person you are refuting wasn't even arguing the point you are refuting. I never said nor even meant to imply that the opponents of Arius were not accurate in what they stated. I simply was reiterating what Wikipedia said, which is where I got the information, and even quoted Wikipedia as evidence of that. Logicaly speaking, how would we be able to know whether the opponents of Arius were accurate or not, when we don't even know what Arius taught?

The second is the fact that you are using the logical error called "begging the question". that happens when someone makes a false assumption then asks a question that assumes that the false assumption is true.

The only assumption I have made is that Wikipedia is correct.

I am not attempting to be snarky here, and it does seem at this point that you are indeed a defender of Arius, BUT if you really believe that he got a bad reputation, then it is your obligation to demonstrate that with facts, and not to make allegations using unsubstantiated innuendos

How exactly am I supposed to defend him when I don't know what he taught?

I was right!

The reason I question whether it was a heresy, is because the controversy appears to be splitting hairs over subjective terms. Much like this thread.

Indeed, there was a time before God created anything. But since it requires created beings, and created material to create a written history. there is nothing else we need to know about that time, other than what is recorded in Scripture.

From what we are told about why Arius was a heretic, this was at least part of what he was teaching. And you agreed with it. Go figure.

Obviously, you must feel some sort of affinity for him. Why is that?

I have no conclusions about Arius. I am more interested as to how Satan uses semantics to cause division. I would need to see his writings so as to see what, if anything was misunderstood. I already have discovered the misunderstandings taken from writings by Clemens of Alexandria that were used to label him a heretic for Docetism.

This is also another false analogy. You are making s highly superficial comparison between two books on two different subjects. It is called "false comparison" or "false moral equivalent.

Okay, Let's just say I wouldn't call you a heretic, and excommunicate you, just because you agreed with Arius on there being a time or place before God spoke. Would that make my point clear?

 

[jocor]

That is not what scripture says.
Scripture says that the Logos was in the beginning with God. (Jn 1:1) One cannot be "with" and "the same as" at the same time. That's like saying, "In the beginning, God was with Himself." That's nonsense. One can only be "with" someone else.
The scripture also says "All things were made through Him (the Logos), and without Him nothing was made that was made.. (Jn 1:3 NKJV)

My logos/word goes with me wherever I go. My reasoning, speech, thoughts, etc., are always with me and is part of me. The same is true of the Father's logos/word.

 

[childeye]

That is not an accurate, Bible-based statement:
.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Jesus ALWAYS (and still) exists
John 8: 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham
The Word is the power that created all things including time and space. As pertains to the Word, there could be an eternal existence before God ever spoke. This doesn't change the fact that God's Word is the expression of Himself.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am​

Respectfully, all I said here is Jesus the man was born. It is scripturally accurate.

 

[By Grace]

Being "pagan" does also mean "wrong." The pagan Greek philosophers created a language which made the discussion of complex theological concepts possible. John used such language when he chose the word "logos" to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ at John 1:1.

When it comes to an understanding of Who God actually is, because the pagan is blinded spiritually, ontologically, while he may have the correct word usage, it is impossible for the pagan to have the correct meaning of God, by definition

SECOND is you are not citing the text as it exists in the Bible. The God of the Bible is a transcendent God

I don't understand what you mean to communicate there.

Transcendent means "beyond time and space"
The living God of the NT is neither conditioned nor restricted in His action by basic metaphysical relations
Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 3, p. 117). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
So I was stating that the poster was not getting his ideas about God from the Bible

I am not familiar with that concept.

I was stating to the poster that just because the words in Hebrew "ha dabaim" " the word" and in Greek "logos" are translated in English using the same English word, "word" that does not mean they are similar.

PLease clarify; exactly what am I eisegeting?

I was referring to the other poster, not you

The God-man Jesus of Nazareth did not exist until He became flesh; until He was born of the Virgin.

That does not agree with what Scripture says. I mentioned previously Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever and you did not respond. Here is another Scripture.

Philippians 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
​

As I see it, there is no getting around the fact that Jesus Christ existed as He is before He took on the flesh of a woman if you really look carefully at verse 6

 

[Jim Parker]

My logos/word goes with me wherever I go. My reasoning, speech, thoughts, etc., are always with me and is part of me. The same is true of the Father's logos/word.

oi veh!

 

[childeye]

When I read all of the miscommunication on this thread, I marvel. Is this what happened prior to and after Nicaea? Knowledge puffs up, but Love edifies.

 

[By Grace]

oi veh!

I call that sort of thing "Humpty Dumptyism"

Certainly,' said Alice.
'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!​

Page 364
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm#link2HCH0006

I get this sort of thing whenever I deal with the cults on CARM, and my only recourse is to use that same emoticon,[ and then quote Lewis Carroll as I did above.

 

[Jim Parker]

When it comes to an understanding of Who God actually is, because the pagan is blinded spiritually, ontologically, while he may have the correct word usage, it is impossible for the pagan to have the correct meaning of God, by definition

That's not what I said. I said they provided a technical language which made the discussion of complex theological concepts possible.

Transcendent means "beyond time and space" The living God of the NT is neither conditioned nor restricted in His action by basic metaphysical relations Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 3, p. 117). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
So I was stating that the poster was not getting his ideas about God from the Bible

SO not for me. oh

I was stating to the poster that just because the words in Hebrew "ha dabaim" " the word" and in Greek "logos" are translated in English using the same English word, "word" that does not mean they are similar.

AH! Stating to "the poster." I thought you were stating to ME! Mea culpa!

Philippians 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
As I see it, there is no getting around the fact that Jesus Christ existed as He is before He took on the flesh of a woman if you really look carefully at verse 6.​

​

Verse 6 says that He existed in the form of God.
Verses 7 & 8 says that he took on the form of of a man. That is a form which He did not have before His incarnation.
John 1:14a "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,"
The eternal Logos (Word) became flesh when he was conceived in Mary's womb by the action of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ eternally existed as the Word of God and at a point in time He became a man (God-man, actually) by being conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

 

[jocor]

oi veh!

Would you mind explaining what was wrong with my post?

 

[By Grace]

Jim Parker said: ↑
Being "pagan" does also mean "wrong." The pagan Greek philosophers created a language which made the discussion of complex theological concepts possible. John used such language when he chose the word "logos" to refer to the pre-incarnate Christ at John 1:1.

That's not what I said. I said they provided a technical language which made the discussion of complex theological concepts possible.

Fine, it is not what you MEANT, but your words seemed to say differently

SO not for me. oh

My turn: I do not understand your meaning here.

AH! Stating to "the poster." I thought you were stating to ME! Mea culpa!

No problem. I simply needed to clarify

The eternal Logos (Word) became flesh when he was conceived in Mary's womb by the action of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ eternally existed as the Word of God and at a point in time He became a man (God-man, actually) by being conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Who do you think was Melchizedek?

 

[Jim Parker]

Who do you think was Melchizedek?

A person who prefigured Christ as both king and priest and, there being no mention of his ancestors or offspring in scripture, is a symbol of Christ's eternal nature. And, as there is no mention of anyone who was priest and king before or after him, Melchizedek is like Christ. He is a foreshadow of Christ, a walking prophesy of He Who was to come. (As was David.)
But to say that Melchizedek was, without doubt, the pre-incarnate Christ is, in my opinion, a leap of faith too far and unnecessary.

 

[Jim Parker]

Would you mind explaining what was wrong with my post?

I don't think I can explain it to you. We don't seem to be speaking the same language.

 

[jocor]

I don't think I can explain it to you. We don't seem to be speaking the same language.

That's a cop out. If you can't explain yourself, then you shouldn't be criticizing me.