The Nicene Creed

[childeye]

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.

I think he used hell as a reference describing a worst possible scenario relative to communion through Love. That is, where Love/God has no existence so as to be worshipped or even realized. Notice I am not saying that there is a place where God does not exist as if He is not Eternal. Or to take liberty by paraphrasing, I take him to mean that division and enmity between God and man or people in general, is of the powers of darkness.

 

[childeye]

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.

I think this is an excellent point. God had to create beings with the ability to hear and understand first, so that when God expressed Himself through the Christ, there would be persons to appreciate what He expressed. That part of the Word of creation is not talked about. There were two Adams and God's Word is still creating. 1 Corinthians 15:45.

 

[childeye]

Oh-oh! My head's swelling! :shock

Maybe it's simply becoming the right size.

 

[Jim Parker]

His claim is that non communion changes love.

If you are referring to my comments, I never made the claim that "non communion changes love."
I said, "The experience of existence without communion and love is hell."
That's the second time you have made up something and claimed that I said it.
Please stop.
Please quit fabricating comments and falsely attributing them to me so you can fulminate against the straw men you have erected.

 

[childeye]

Okay, Let's all be friends. God is good, we all agree on that.

 

[smaller]

If you are referring to my comments, I never made the claim that "non communion changes love."
I said, "The experience of existence without communion and love is hell."
That's the second time you have made up something and claimed that I said it.
Please stop.
Please quit fabricating comments and falsely attributing them to me so you can fulminate against the straw men you have erected.

I can read. Gods Love doesn't change. What will change is sin/evil and death being put away. There will be no non-communion.

 

[smaller]

I think this is an excellent point. God had to create beings with the ability to hear and understand first, so that when God expressed Himself through the Christ, there would be persons to appreciate what He expressed. That part of the Word of creation is not talked about. There were two Adams and God's Word is still creating. 1 Corinthians 15:45.

Well, there ya go! First the natural, then the spiritual continues to be a present working of God in Christ.

 

[smaller]

I think he used hell as a reference describing a worst possible scenario relative to communion through Love. That is, where Love/God has no existence so as to be worshipped or even realized. Notice I am not saying that there is a place where God does not exist as if He is not Eternal. Or to take liberty by paraphrasing, I take him to mean that division and enmity between God and man or people in general, is of the powers of darkness.

I'm familiar with the background story behind what he's saying. I don't accept that background story as scripturally legitimate. We just can't talk about it in detail here, but he manages to sneak this stuff in anyway. So, he'll get a response.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Now tell me what that 'honest mistake' was? An assertion does not provide evidence.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

This is a red herring fallacy where you are off and running with what you want to say, but you did not deal with what I wrote and the evidence I provided of Jesus coming in the flesh. I provided the biblical evidence, but you have not dealt with that.
[edited. We do not "know" the heart of another nor do we know what another wants to do or not. Let's stick with what we know to be. WIP]

 

[OzSpen]

On that we agree, good.


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

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.

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​

You miss something fundamental when comparing translations. The NLT is a dynamic equivalent translation (meaning-for-meaning), as is the NIV, ISV and NET. The ESV, KJV, HCSB, NASB and NRSV are formal equivalent translations (attempts at word-for-word). 'The word became flesh' means 'the word became a human being'. That's the meaning. I read and teach NT Greek. I'm not a dummy when it comes to understanding the meaning of NT Greek.

Don Carson's commentary on John's Gospel has this comment on John 1:14, 'At this point the incarnation, the "in-fleshing" of the Word, is articulated in the boldest way' (Carson 1991:126).

It is referring to Jesus becoming a human being and that is the meaning that the NLT conveys.

Oz

 

[By Grace]

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?

GREAT QUESTION!

You are getting to the point of the differences between the translation methods. As a prelude, I must say that the Greek word for flesh is in there, but the Greek word for man is not.

14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ...
Holmes, M. W. (2011–2013). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Jn 1:14). Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature.

The word σὰρξ (transliterated "sarks") is what is in focus. The Greek word for "man" ἄνθρωπος is transliterated as "anthropos" and not there.

σάρξ, σαρκικός, † σάρκινος

Contents: A. σάρξ in the Greek World: 1. σάρξ as the Muscular Part of the Human or Animal Body; 2. The Origin of Flesh; 3. σάρξ as Body; 4. Special Meanings; 5. σάρκινος; 6. The Corruptible σάρξ in Distinction from the Incorruptible Part of Man;​

Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 7, p. 98). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

The article drones on for 10,000+ words that covers the ancients, the Hellenistic period, etc. but the crux of the meaning of σὰρξ is that it is often paired with the Greek word for "blood" in the NT, and the emphasis if the corruptible parts of being a human, or a mammal. It is also in keeping with Philippians 2 in the "Humiliation of Jesus" that Jesus, being fully holy, and fully God humbled Himself to add to His nature that corruptible nature of a human.

Strongs, and others state that the word ἄνθρωπος has to do with individual person hood and can be of non specific gender. Dince Jesus always is, it is not correct to say that "The Word became a person," and that is the subtle but significant difference between the two.

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).

You caught me in an over simplification. 2

What I was attempting to state is that the formal equivalence method is more precise than the dynamic method.

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)

Generally speaking I do not hold to this view.

In this case, there really is no difference between "became flesh" and "became human."

I believe that I have demonstrated differently, and provided a theological reason for why I stated as I did.

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.

I stated above why I hold that there is a BIG difference between "the Word became human": and "The word became flesh."

This is the sort of argumentation that I really enjoy! Two brothers digging into Scripture and not taking digs at the other person.

 

[RevSRE]

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

Thank you for the comment. Such discussions often get me in hot water, but, I try to get people to think and study on a wider scale than old theology and older church teachings. So many "Christians" simply repeat what someone taught them and never really think it through to understand what is being taught. It is good to have some one stop and read a different idea.

 

[By Grace]

You miss something fundamental when comparing translations. The NLT is a dynamic equivalent translation (meaning-for-meaning), as is the NIV, ISV and NET. The ESV, KJV, HCSB, NASB and NRSV are formal equivalent translations (attempts at word-for-word). 'The word became flesh' means 'the word became a human being'. That's the meaning. I read and teach NT Greek.

I addressed this in my post to you. Perhaps you overlooked it.

That's the meaning. I read and teach NT Greek. I'm not a dummy when it comes to understanding the meaning of NT Greek.

The issue here is NOT personal, but this is the second time you are accusing me or making up something that I never said, nor intended. This is merely a discussion about translation methods. Let's keep it on that level, OK?
You may have got better grades in grad school in Greek than I did. So what? My M.div was earned in 1980, and it was before Dan Wallace began publishing.

You should have essentially the same language tools at your disposal, in your private library as I do. that is why I used the materials, and cited them as I did

Don Carson's commentary on John's Gospel has this comment on John 1:14, 'At this point the incarnation, the "in-fleshing" of the Word, is articulated in the boldest way' (Carson 1991:126).

It is referring to Jesus becoming a human being and that is the meaning that the NLT conveys.

Begging your pardon, but this below does not seem to agree with what you said above

John 1:1 (ESV) confirms that the Word (Jesus) was always God but he became the God-man by becoming flesh (John 1:14 ESV). When was that? When he was born to Mary at Bethlehem.

I do beg your pardon, but I have made the case for σὰρξ because that is what is in the text, and I did not find any textural variants using my UBS dated 1975 in paper.
OTOH, you are attempting to eisegete ἄνθρωπος into the text, and you have provided no other reason other than your belief that it is "dynamically better" to do so. That is your opinion, and you have the right to make any opinions you wish.

But IMHO, there is no one, no matter his theological stripe (I am Reformed and Evangelical) who has the right to place words into Scripture that are neither there, nor in a scribal gloss. So the choice is yours on what to do next:

You can continue to disagree with me; I am OK with that. If we brothers can discuss the things of Scripture on a forum such as this in a way that glorifies Jesus Christ, then we and the church are winners.

OTOH if we are going to go assume trespasses on minor things, and accuse others of things that are not true, then we are losers. I do not want to go personal here; that is for other sorts of web sites.

Which way do you want to continue?

 

[RevSRE]

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.

Am I the only one that reads this as, What God said, the thought carried out to maturity, What God promised by His word, the words God spoke, ( ok you get the picture). God said it would happen and in it time it DID. God promised the messiah and in His time He came. THAT DOES NOT SAY THE WORD WAS JESUS. The word promised Jesus and In His time He came. Jesus was the GOD MAN BOTH in one but HE was born of Mary flesh and blood with a birthday and death He was a MAN and GOD!

 

[smaller]

This is a red herring fallacy where you are off and running with what you want to say, but you did not deal with what I wrote and the evidence I provided of Jesus coming in the flesh. I provided the biblical evidence, but you don't want to deal with that.

Don't really know what yer complaining about. Jesus undoubtedly has a human heritage that preceded His Body. No different than you having relatives who have passed who had their role in bringing your body about. Not rocket science in this sight.

 

[By Grace]

Am I the only one that reads this as, What God said, the thought carried out to maturity, What God promised by His word, the words God spoke, ( ok you get the picture). God said it would happen and in it time it DID. God promised the messiah and in His time He came. THAT DOES NOT SAY THE WORD WAS JESUS. The word promised Jesus and In His time He came. Jesus was the GOD MAN BOTH in one but HE was born of Mary flesh and blood with a birthday and death He was a MAN and GOD!

You may very well be.
Please look further at these Scriptures because it says that the Word was Jesus, and that He is God.

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
2 this one was in the beginning with God;
3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men,

6 There came a man--having been sent from God--whose name is John,
7 this one came for testimony, that he might testify about the Light, that all might believe through him;
8 that one was not the Light, but--that he might testify about the Light. 9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world;

10 in the world he was, and the world through him was made, and the world did not know him:
11 to his own things he came, and his own people did not receive him;
12 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God--to those believing in his name,
13 who--not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but--of God were begotten.
14 And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.​

ONLY by ignoring the previous verses can one come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is something else other than God incarnate.

 

[childeye]

Now tell me what that 'honest mistake' was? An assertion does not provide evidence.

Thanks for asking Oz. It matters to me what you think of me. Another poster had said I had used logical fallacies to arrive at certain conclusions that I had never even said or implied. You congratulated that poster for exposing faulty reasoning. Since it matters to me what you think of me, I challenged your approval of that evaluation..

 

[OzSpen]

I addressed this in my post to you. Perhaps you overlooked it.


The issue here is NOT personal, but this is the second time you are accusing me or making up something that I never said, nor intended. This is merely a discussion about translation methods. Let's keep it on that level, OK?
You may have got better grades in grad school in Greek than I did. So what? My M.div was earned in 1980, and it was before Dan Wallace began publishing.

You should have essentially the same language tools at your disposal, in your private library as I do. that is why I used the materials, and cited them as I did


Begging your pardon, but this below does not seem to agree with what you said above

I do beg your pardon, but I have made the case for σὰρξ because that is what is in the text, and I did not find any textural variants using my UBS dated 1975 in paper.
OTOH, you are attempting to eisegete ἄνθρωπος into the text, and you have provided no other reason other than your belief that it is "dynamically better" to do so. That is your opinion, and you have the right to make any opinions you wish.

But IMHO, there is no one, no matter his theological stripe (I am Reformed and Evangelical) who has the right to place words into Scripture that are neither there, nor in a scribal gloss. So the choice is yours on what to do next:

You can continue to disagree with me; I am OK with that. If we brothers can discuss the things of Scripture on a forum such as this in a way that glorifies Jesus Christ, then we and the church are winners.

OTOH if we are going to go assume trespasses on minor things, and accuse others of things that are not true, then we are losers. I do not want to go personal here; that is for other sorts of web sites.

Which way do you want to continue?

How did Jesus, the Word, become flesh other than through his humanity?

 

[OzSpen]

By Grace,

You stated:

I do beg your pardon, but I have made the case for σὰρξ because that is what is in the text, and I did not find any textural variants using my UBS dated 1975 in paper.
OTOH, you are attempting to eisegete ἄνθρωπος into the text, and you have provided no other reason other than your belief that it is "dynamically better" to do so. That is your opinion, and you have the right to make any opinions you wish.

Please inform us when the Word of John 1:14 became sarx (flesh). When did that happen?