The Nicene Creed

[childeye]

Would you mind explaining what was wrong with my post?

Personally, I thought your post was funny. Some antics with semantics.

 

[childeye]

Let's start over. What does the term God mean?

 

[childeye]

This is an excellent expose of faulty reasoning. Congrats!

I agree. To assume I assumed is faulty reasoning. It's called a straw man argument.

 

[Jim Parker]

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

That's my conclusion based on previous attempts to explain anything to you. It hasn't produced any positive results in the past. As Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, I do not care to act in an insane manner.
You appear to me to be terribly confused and don't think that I am able to assist you in this arena.
You seem to post here to show us all that the teaching of the Trinity wrong and that you have the real inside scoop on God.
So, "19", "we can't talk at all."
Be blessed.

 

[childeye]

I have a question from the creed. Homoousia, Of the same substance, God is an eternal spirit essence, ??? DOES THE CREED SAY JESUS IN NOT A MAN.\????
Doceian heresy that Jesus only came in the spirit and not the flesh.
Logos DOES NOT MEAN JESUS. The WORD is what GOD SAID!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

Tertullian said John 1:1 the Word (logos) was reason and from OT Hebrew thinking reason was the personification of God. That is where the idea the “Word” is Jesus came from. 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.”

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

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
and God was the word. It was in beginning before the God

3 πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
All through Him came in to being and without Him came into being nothing

ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
In him Life was and the life was the Light of men.

Trying to translate theword (ὁ λόγος) to Latin as early as the second century the Latin Sermo(speech) and Verbum(word) were rival translations of this term. Tertullian (fl. A.D. 198–210) gives us both, but seems himself to prefer Rati0(reason). The Latin versions without exception adopted Verbum(word), and from it comes our translation ‘the Word,’ translations which have greatly affected Western theology. None of these translations are at all adequate; but neither Latin nor any modern language supplies anything really satisfactory. The Latin Verbum and ‘the Word’ do not give even the whole of one of the two sides of the Greek ὁ λόγος. The other side, which Tertullian tried to express by Ratio (reason), is not touched at all. For ὁ λόγος means not only ‘the spoken word,’ but ‘the thought’ expressed by the spoken word; it is the spoken word as expressive of thought. But on what was this doctrine based? Where did St. John derive the expression? There can be little doubt that it has its origin in the Targums, or paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, in use in Palestine, and in the mixture of Jewish and Greek philosophy prevalent at Alexandria and Ephesus. (1) In the Old Testament we find the Word or Wisdom of God personified, generally as an instrument for executing the Divine Will, as if it were itself distinct from that Will. (2) In the Apocrypha the personification is more complete than in the O.T.(3) In the Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the O.T., the development is carried still further. These, though not yet written down, were in common use among the Jews in our Lord’s time; and they were strongly influenced by the growing tendency to separate the Divine Essence from immediate contact with the material world. Cambridge Greek Commentary for Schools e-Sword

With this in mind let us try this again.

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

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
and divine was the thought.

2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
It(the thought) was in beginning before the God

3 πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
All by God’s plan came in to being and without it came into being nothing

4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
In him(God) Life was and the life was the Light of men.(Christ)


But, what does that say? So much theology hangs on the meaning of this phrase we must know.
I think John 1:1 says “in the beginning was God’s plan and that plan was followed by God the Plan was divine.” In GOD is all life and that life became the Light of men, JESUS. The problem of this discussion is in the argument that “All Flesh is Sinful, Evil, or the opposite of God.” Jesus the Son of God, cannot be flesh it is evil. This is an ancient Mystic idea coming from Babylonian Mysticism and Zoroastrianism, it is the origin of Satan’s counterfeit. John 1:1 was translated to Latin then German and English with the theology that Jesus existed from before creation because He could not be Flesh, a man. BUT, Jesus was a man, He had to be a man to take our place and pay the sin debt. In a wonderful, hard to understand, God controlled mystery Jesus was both God and man, the exact extent of which I cannot explain.

BUT HE WAS TOTALLY GOD AND TOTALLY MAN.
The man had a birth conceived of God by the Holy Spirit in Mary. Grew and learned a trade, taught the way we can see God and how to live for God, then He took our place on the cross and paid a debt we could not pay. He is risen and rewarded and sits at God’s right hand. We must not translate Bible with a preconceived theology in mind, it generates error.

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.
JESUS WAS THE GOD/MAN BOTH A REAL MAN AND TOTALLY GOD.

Tertullian tried to express by Ratio(reason) the idea that the word was Jesus as God’s reason. And Jesus is the savior who carried out the plan. But, we must be careful not to make Jesus the plan. There is so much here we sell God short if we read this wrong.

Now, the Greeks talked much about the Logos. And according to the Greek philosophy, everything pre-existed in a thought. Anything that you see existed in thought before it became form. In other words, a pulpit began with a thought. Some craftsman had in his mind a design, an idea for a podium. And so, he drew it out on a piece of paper, but it was the expression of his thought. And so, before anything exists, it has pre-existed in a thought. So, to the Greek philosopher, the thought was the origin of things. Well, the Bible takes you one step further back. It said if there was a thought, then there had to be a thinker, because you can't have a thought without a thinker. So, in the beginning, God, "In the beginning, was the Word (the thought, the Plan)." And so, it actually goes back even before the thought, you have the existence of the One who thought, or the existence of God. Chuck Smith Commentary e-Sword

In the Greek world Plato argued that the reality of everything was in the mind, the thought. Aristotle argued the reality of everything is in the ITEM itself, “real” is what I can touch, measure, see. John’s use is the thoughtnot the person or item in the physical world.

Impressive post. Thank you for taking the time to contribute this. I read it twice. I found it fascinating.

 

[Jim Parker]

Let's start over. What does the term God mean?

HAH! Well done!
That's an EXCELLENT place to start!

 

[childeye]

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.

I still think the word person is subjective.
But as pertains to a second person, being flesh and blood and tasting death, wouldn't that Person be distinct with a different perspective? Otherwise how would Christ become our advocate, and an intercessor ?

 

[Jim Parker]

I still think the word person is subjective.
But as pertains to a second person, being flesh and blood and tasting death, wouldn't that Person be distinct with a different perspective? Otherwise how would Christ become our advocate, and an intercessor ?

In a sense, the word "person" is subjective. We cannot accurately and exhaustively define God.

"Person" offers us a close approximation because it is necessary for the Three to be "persons" in order for there to be communion between them.

It is necessary for there to be communion in order to have being. Being without communion is meaningless.
It is necessary for there to be communion in order for there to be love. Communion without love is also meaningless.

The experience of existence without communion and love is hell.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 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
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001).
I have mo doubt that you BELIEVE as you posted, but the Bible in that version, nor any other version does not support what you stated

If it were as you stated, then Jesus would be a liar or a lunatic when he stated this:

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am​

The verses you quote do not deal with the verses I quoted or with the beginning of Jesus in the flesh. Jesus' Godhood is from eternity and your verses affirm that.

What I stated does not make Jesus a liar or me a liar. It states it according to Scriptures that you seem to be avoiding, that there was a point in time when Jesus became a human being, born in the flesh. This is affirmed by verses such as:

John 1:14 (NLT) states, 'So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son'.

Matt 2:1 (NLT), 'Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod'.

That is the beginning of Jesus in the flesh. You are missing this emphasis.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I agree. To assume I assumed is faulty reasoning. It's called a straw man argument.

That's a false accusation.

 

[childeye]

That's a false accusation.

Respectfully, I think you made an honest mistake. There was a misunderstanding. It happens to me. It could happen to anyone. It happens all the time on this forum. I see nothing to accuse anyone of.
I desire only peace between us.

 

[childeye]

In a sense, the word "person" is subjective. We cannot accurately and exhaustively define God.

"Person" offers us a close approximation because it is necessary for the Three to be "persons" in order for there to be communion between them.

It is necessary for there to be communion in order to have being. Being without communion is meaningless.
It is necessary for there to be communion in order for there to be love. Communion without love is also meaningless.

The experience of existence without communion and love is hell.

iakov the fool

Where's the scripture to back this up? I'm joking.

I have to say, your thoughts posted here are self evident Truth shining brightly in glory of God. I see no place for a lie in your reasoning. Rather than attempting to digitize the Nature of God with subjective words, or draw a diagram, your post speaks to the simple and yet profound aspect of the Trinity.

 

[smaller]

That is the beginning of Jesus in the flesh. You are missing this emphasis.
Oz

Let's also recognize that the human body of Jesus was actually carried forward from Adam and Eve, through the familial lineage of Jesus, intimately detailed in the O.T. and in the Gospels. Technically the people of Israel were, and still are, the closer blood relatives of Jesus through this lineage. And the lineage of Adam began with God, as his Father. Luke 3:38. Technically speaking it was God who created the natural man, as a Father, in the beginning.

So it isn't like the human body of Jesus popped up out of nowhere, disconnected from the people of Israel or humanity in general.

In this lineage we see God's Discourses with the father side of the equation. And with Mary, the mother side, in the Spiritual creation of Jesus human body, without an earthly father. In this God has interacted with both male in Adam, and female, in Mary. And this in accord with other aspects of scripture, such as first the natural man, then the spiritual birthed man, as 1 Cor. 15:46 show us, in Gods Way of doing things.

Believers are birthed similarly. We are born first in the natural, and then provided the Spirit of Christ by faith.

 

[smaller]

The experience of existence without communion and love is hell.
iakov the fool

Partialist pet doctrine of a certain sect. It can't stand to scripture. The LoF is a prepared or made place. Gods Love is eternal and unchanging. They are not the same. Therefore Love can not be hell.

Both the power of death and hell are cast into infamous prepared fire. Matt. 25:41 Rev. 20:14

 

[childeye]

Partialist pet doctrine of a certain sect. It can't stand to scripture. The LoF is a prepared or made place. Gods Love is eternal and unchanging. They are not the same. Therefore Love can not be hell.

Both the power of death and hell are cast into infamous prepared fire. Matt. 25:41 Rev. 20:14

I think you misunderstand his sentiment, since you essentially agreed with it. He meant without Love is hell, not Love is hell.

 

[smaller]

I think you misunderstand his sentiment, since you essentially agreed with it. He meant without Love is hell, not Love is hell.

His claim is that non communion changes love. It doesn't and can't. The freewill posture is at the core of that sight, continuing freewill resistance, non communion, past the grave. That won't happen. We are promised an end to sin, evil and death. A permanent, non influencing end.

 

[By Grace]

The verses you quote do not deal with the verses I quoted or with the beginning of Jesus in the flesh. Jesus' Godhood is from eternity and your verses affirm that.

On that we agree, good.

What I stated does not make Jesus a liar or me a liar

I NEVER USED THAT WORD ABOUT YOU, nor did I insinuate it. I was stating that your position is not reflecting what Jesus said about Himself, nor what Paul stated

It states it according to Scriptures that you seem to be avoiding, that there was a point in time when Jesus became a human being, born in the flesh. This is affirmed by verses such as:

No, I am not avoiding anything. It is clear that Jesus added to Himself a human nature because the Philippians 2 passage I quoted earlier says it unequivocally.

John 1:14 (NLT) states, 'So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son'.
Matt 2:1 (NLT), 'Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod'.

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.

14 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 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth The New International Version. (2011).

14 The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. The Holy Bible: Holman Christian standard version.

14 And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth The Lexham English Bible

Can you see how the NLT changes things? (BTW the ESV, Lexham and the Holman are the newest, and most scholarly editions of the Bible.) I could post something from the Greek NT, but I do not want to "bully anyone" with that, but the points I am making about Scripture are two fold:
1) is that the word "human" is not in any other translation of that verse in the Bible, excepting the NLT
2) is the fact that by using the word "human" there is something quite different in focus and is actually contradictory to Philippians 2.

So my friend, I can see and understand why and how you would come to your understanding. You are supporting it from a translation that gives a wrong impression

Here is the reason:
The NLT is not the best translation of these verses because it is a dynamic translation, and not a word-for-word translation.

We believe that the New Living Translation—which combines the latest biblical scholarship with a clear, dynamic writing style—will communicate God’s word powerfully to all who read it. We publish it with the prayer that God will use it to speak his timeless truth to the church and the world in a fresh, new way.​

Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

This is the last paragraph of their Note to Readers in the beginning of the book.

The difference between a word-for-word translation and the dynamic translation is that the former takes the original words in the original languages, and translates them exactly as they are written. the dynamic translation process is an interpretative process. In the latter example, the translators say that they essentially know better than the Apostles, and they say (in this case) "Well John actually meant that Jesus became human, so we will insert that." That is being "dynamic". It also causes all sorts of errors to pop up, and cause unnecessary strife.

I do not include the Matthew 2:1 passage because we all know that Jesus began His earthly ministry as an infant. That does not mean that Jesus became human at His birth, either. You were correct about Melchizedec on one level, but I do believe you may have overlooked what Hebrews says about Him vis a vis Jesus Christ:

Hebrews 5:. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec​

 

[Jim Parker]

Where's the scripture to back this up? I'm joking.

I have to say, your thoughts posted here are self evident Truth shining brightly in glory of God. I see no place for a lie in your reasoning. Rather than attempting to digitize the Nature of God with subjective words, or draw a diagram, your post speaks to the simple and yet profound aspect of the Trinity.

Oh-oh! My head's swelling! :shock
Thank you.
Those thoughts are a bit of what I have gleaned from Becoming a Healing Presence by Albert S. Rossi, PhD, Ancient Faith Publishing, Chesterton, Indiana

 

[Jim Parker]

Partialist pet doctrine of a certain sect. It can't stand to scripture. The LoF is a prepared or made place. Gods Love is eternal and unchanging. They are not the same. Therefore Love can not be hell.

Both the power of death and hell are cast into infamous prepared fire. Matt. 25:41 Rev. 20:14

I didn't say "love is hell."
I said, (and here I'll break it down for you)
"The experience of existence
without communion and love
is hell."

 

[Free]

No, I am not avoiding anything. It is clear that Jesus added to Himself a human nature because the Philippians 2 passage I quoted earlier says it unequivocally.



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.

14 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 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth The New International Version. (2011).

14 The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. The Holy Bible: Holman Christian standard version.

14 And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth The Lexham English Bible

Can you see how the NLT changes things? (BTW the ESV, Lexham and the Holman are the newest, and most scholarly editions of the Bible.) I could post something from the Greek NT, but I do not want to "bully anyone" with that, but the points I am making about Scripture are two fold:
1) is that the word "human" is not in any other translation of that verse in the Bible, excepting the NLT
2) is the fact that by using the word "human" there is something quite different in focus and is actually contradictory to Philippians 2.

Precisely what is the difference between "became flesh" and "became human"? And precisely how does using the word "human" change the focus and contradict Phil 2?

Here is the reason:
The NLT is not the best translation of these verses because it is a dynamic translation, and not a word-for-word translation.

We believe that the New Living Translation—which combines the latest biblical scholarship with a clear, dynamic writing style—will communicate God’s word powerfully to all who read it. We publish it with the prayer that God will use it to speak his timeless truth to the church and the world in a fresh, new way.​

Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

This is the last paragraph of their Note to Readers in the beginning of the book.

The difference between a word-for-word translation and the dynamic translation is that the former takes the original words in the original languages, and translates them exactly as they are written. the dynamic translation process is an interpretative process. In the latter example, the translators say that they essentially know better than the Apostles, and they say (in this case) "Well John actually meant that Jesus became human, so we will insert that." That is being "dynamic". It also causes all sorts of errors to pop up, and cause unnecessary strife.

No translation is actually "word-for-word." Such translations, known as formal equivalence, still rely on translators to interpret, simply because Greek and Hebrew do not translate directly into English (most, if not all languages, will not translate directly into another language without a certain amount of interpretation). Certainly dynamic equivalence translations rely much more on translator interpretation and therefore can inherit the translators' bias, but that certainly doesn't mean that in a given instance that they're wrong (in some instances they can actually be more accurate in capturing an author's intent). In this case, there really is no difference between "became flesh" and "became human."

It is worth noting that your argument actually appears to be the one contradicting Phil 2, as though "became flesh" means he only appeared as man but wasn't actually human.