If you've gotten too busy, or you'd rather not tackle this particular topic right now, it's okay. I can read up on Christadelphianism on the net and try to figure out how they approach those passages =)
I have been busy, and just havent got round to this.
OK, I will deal with it now.
John 1:1-3
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
1. Christ was not literally the Word. He was the word "made flesh". (vs. 14).
The Greek word "logos" translated "Word" expresses the divine intention, mind, or purpose.
1 Young defines "logos" as "a word, speech, matter, reason."
2 In the A.V. "logos" is translated by more than 20 different English words and is used for utterances of men (e.g., John 17:20) as well as those of God (John 5:38).
2. "In the beginning was the Word . . . all things were made by him."3
"Logos" does not in itself denote personality. It is personified by the masculine gender in the A.V., The Diaglott avoids confusion by translating the pronouns in the neuter - "through it every thing was done."4
An Old Testament parallel to the personification of logos is the personification of wisdom: "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." (Prov. 8:22, 23). In this passage, wisdom is personified as a woman. (vs. 1, 2).
3. "All things were made by him" - John is apparently alluding to the creation recorded in Genesis. God spoke, and it was done (e.g. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Gen. 1:3. Notice another allusion - John 1:7, 8). But this creation was not accompanied by Christ, but by the "logos" of God. This is indicated by several passages:
1. "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." "For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." (Psa. 33:6, 9). See also Psa. 107:20; 147:15, 18, 19; Isa. 55:11.
2. " . . . by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water . . . But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:5, 7).
3. See also Hebrews 11:3 cf. Jeremiah 10:12, 13.5
4. Angels, prophets and Christ have been vehicles by which God has expressed his logos. Christ is the complete manifestation of the logos - "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:9). It was the "logos" which was in the beginning with God, not Christ. When the "word was made flesh" (John 1:14) then, and then only, Christ became the "Word". Christ is called the Word (Rev. 19:13 cf. 1 John 1:1; Luke 1:2) since his doctrine and words came from his Father (John 7:16; 17:14). He was the logos lived out in speech and action, not merely written on scrolls.
Footnotes:
1. This can be supported by evaluating all references to "logos" in the New Testament and the Septuagint.
2. Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1965).
3. It is sometimes argued that the "beginning" referred to in John 1:1 is the beginning of Christ's ministry. 1 John 1:1 is offered in support of this interpretation. It should be noted, however, that John's allusions in John 1 are drawn from Genesis 1 as point 3 outlines, thereby implying that the beginning refers to the same narrative and not to the ministry of Christ.
4. Benjamin Wilson, The Emphatic Diaglott, (Brooklyn: International Bible Students Ass., Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1942).
5. It is also noteworthy that although the writer to the Hebrews speaks in exalted terms of Christ (e.g. "express image of his {God's} person" - Hebrews 1:3), "logos" is used of God's message, and not of Christ himself. See Hebrews 2:2; 4:2, 12; 7:28; 12:19 and 13:7, 22.
This is the best article I can use to put over how I understand this passage.
It makes sense to me, because I understand that God purpose was known before creation, anbd this of course included the provision of Christ.
At the very best for a trinitarian argument, you would have Jesus with God at creation, as a second god not being one and the same as God. If we logically go down the road of Jesus being very God, then you have Jesus obeying himself, and doing his own will. This of course is totally contrary to scripture.
In fact, this pre existence IS something the JWs believe, though they are not trinitarians.
Christadelphians do not believe Jesus pre existed either.
In summary, I beleieve that God peurpose, expressed thorugh His word was represented in the person of Jesus Christ. This was achieved by Jesus being obedient TO God, and doing HIS will.
By speaking ONLY as the Father directed, Jesus was Gods representative, totaly in unity WITH God, by way of this obedience. Being GIVEN authority BY God, means Jesus was Gods official spokesman here on earth.
I figured you were just busy with your new music forum.
So the information you presented is similar to some of the views I've read in the Watchtower explanations.
I don't have an issue with the Logos being gender-neutral, and that doesn't make the Logos more impersonal to me. God is gender-neutral. God is not a man, God is spirit, both men AND women are created in the image of God. We refer to God as "He" and as the "Father" to try to make God easier for us as humans to comprehend. There are even a few references to God that describe feminine aspects or qualities. It's just easier for us to think of God as "He" -- but it can also lead us to imagine God as a Zeus/Odin archetype, an old bearded man on a throne, and that's not accurate.
The Logos is not just a force, the Logos is definitely God -- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. All things were created by the Logos. And in Colossians 1:16-17 it says all things were created by Jesus - "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." If Jesus did not pre-exist, as the Word, then how did he create all things? And why did he say, "Before Abraham was, I AM!"
Just as a side note, you said: An Old Testament parallel to the personification of logos is the personification of wisdom: "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." (Prov. 8:22, 23). In this passage, wisdom is personified as a woman. (vs. 1, 2).
Yes, I don't see this as a personification of the Logos, but of Wisdom -- Sophia -- the Holy Spirit. And as I see the Father reflects the masculine aspects of God, who has no gender, I see the Holy Spirit often reflects the feminine aspects of God. But they are both aspects of one God, the only God there is.
And I think we have more similarities than differences in our beliefs.
But what do you think of Colossians 1:16-17 where it says all things were created by Jesus - "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." If Jesus did not pre-exist, as the Word, then how did he create all things?
And John 8:58-59 when Jesus said, "'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."
Jesus claimed to pre-exist before Abraham, and because he chose the words "I am" -- the holy name of God -- instead of "I was", or "I have been", the Jews considered what he was saying to be blasphemy, and they were going to stone him.
"I think we have more similarities than differences in our beliefs."
That would be nice!!
"But what do you think of Colossians 1:16-17 where it says all things were created by Jesus - "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." If Jesus did not pre-exist, as the Word, then how did he create all things?"
I believe this to mean the first of the NEW creation. He was begotten of the Father, and was not created before he existed. One cannot exist befoere one exists, it is a conrtradiction in terms. The creation of this world ALWAYS included Jesus in the plan, as I stated when we discussed the Logos. So though he did not exist as an entity, he was certainly there in the plan, for the new creation God had in store for us. Nothing that has happned throughout history was without this fact; that the Christ would be required to come (be provided).
"And John 8:58-59 when Jesus said, "'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."
Jesus claimed to pre-exist before Abraham, and because he chose the words "I am" -- the holy name of God -- instead of "I was", or "I have been", the Jews considered what he was saying to be blasphemy, and they were going to stone him. "
Well, "I am" was NOT the holy name of God here. It is Greek, not Hebrew, and the Hebrew would be 'Yahweh' (I am what I am - or rather I will be what i will be to be more accurate). So thats really a wrong understanding of Jesus saying "I am".
However, he does appear to be saying he existed before Abraham on the surface. It was THIS pre-eminance to Abraham that angered them. Jesus was NOT saying he actually existed BEFORE Abraham, but is saying he was always to be in the plan prior to Abraham.
In other words, lineage in Abraham was NOT enough to make one Godly, but rather to be in Christ, as this was the way to restoration, both for Jew and gentile. It was CHRIST not Abraham that would led all to salvation, and that included the Jews,
So, in summary, it is to do with PRE-EMINANCE, not to do with pre-existance, or being very God.
Jesus, the man, did not speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. When he uttered the words "I am", he was speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew.
The Jews saw his claim as blasphemy. It happened again in John 10 when he said "I and the Father are one." The Jews again wanted to stone him -- "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
in Aramaic, true, but not Hebrew (in general speech) but would also speak in Greek, as most would in those days (thats not provable, but probable). Greek in those days was as universal as English is today.
Point is, it wansnt the divine name, which would have been specifically in Hebrew, and would have been tranaslated as such.
There's a high probability that Greek was Jesus' first language. It depends on where he was born and of what persuasion he was.
The Hasmonean dynasty (the Jewish independent kingdom established under the Macabees) was coming to naught in 63 BC when Pompey of Rome came in and sided with one of the Hasmonean brothers to end their own civil war. That gave Rome effective control of the Jewish region. Pompey took the northern region (sort of Syria) from the Macedonians and so that became part of the Roman Empire as well. To the east of Galilee was the Decapolis region which was highly biased toward's Greek culture. Then, the region of Samaria and Galilee had ALREADY been called "the way of the Gentiles".
Long story short ..............
The Hasmonean Kingdom TRIED to make their own Israel into a Hebrew state. However, they faced opposition from all around themselves and from the region of Samaria (internal) too. That split the people into "true" Jews and "Hellenist" Jews.
Since Jesus was active in Galilee and Samaria, it could well be that he preferred the more open outlook of Greek and bilingualism.
...was the language of the Jews in 1st century Palestine. I'm not following your logic that Greek would be his first language.
Josephus said (Antiquities 20.21.2): "I have also taken a great deal of pains
to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue [Aramaic], that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations..."
As J.P. Meier observes (A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, page 261): "Admittedly, all this sheds at most a very indirect light on our main question, the language that Jesus knew and used best. But if even the gifted Jerusalemite intellectual Josephus was not totally at home in Greek after years of writing in it while living in Rome, and if in AD 70 he had found it necessary or at least advisable to address his fellow Jews in Jerusalem in Aramaic rather than Greek, the chances of a Galilean peasant knowing enough Greek to become a successful teacher and preacher who regularly delivered his discourses in Greek seem slim."
Inscriptions of the time evince that the commonly spoken Aramaic was mostly free of Greek influence on its vocabulary, unlike in later centuries (Meier, page 265). Although they are all written in Greek, the only foreign words that the Gospels put on the lips of Jesus are in Aramaic, such as in Mark 5:41, 7:34, and 15:34. The Greek Gospel of John says that Jesus named Simon as Kephas (Jn 1:42), and Paul used the Aramaic address to God, abba, even when writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles in Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:16.
Meier concludes his discussion with these words: "Jesus regularly and perhaps exclusively taught in Aramaic, his Greek being of a practical, business type, and perhaps rudimentary to boot." (page 268)
During Jesus' lifetime, in the first century CE, Jews in Judaea are believed to have primarily spoken Aramaic with a dwindling number using Hebrew as a native language. Many learned Hebrew as a liturgical language. Additionally, Koine Greek was an international language of the Roman administration and trade, and was widely understood by those in the urban spheres of influence. Latin was spoken in the Roman army, but had almost no impact on the linguistic landscape.
And I don't know if Jesus would have been considered "urban" -- he may have known some Greek, as a tradesman (being a carpenter), but I see no evidence that it would be his first language, or the language he would use to speak to fellow Jews.
How come then, in Luke 4:18, he read from the Septuagint translation?
Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel (good news) to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.
Isaiah 61:1
KJV (Translated from Hebrew)
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound
Greek Septuagint
1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;
Jesus spoke Aramaic (a language related to Arabic) as his mother tongue. He probably understood Hebrew very well, as he was very well learned in the Hebrew scriptures. He probably spoke at least some Greek (a common trade language in that area) and Latin as well, enough Latin to converse with Pilate. What I meant to say -- and SHOULD have said -- was that when Jesus was speaking to those Jews, he was not speaking Greek. There would have been absolutely no reason for him to speak Greek to other Jews. He was most likely speaking Aramaic or Hebrew.
The Jews had very strict religious laws, and they were very careful to observe those laws at all times. You couldn't just stone someone for no reason, or because you didn't like what they were saying. One specific law said that you could stone someone for the sin of blasphemy, which is what they intended to do in John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
I don't get time off for bad weather, so I'm off crunch numbers, ugh. Talk to you later, Julian...
I never noticed this verse before in particular but ............... indeed, they were going to STONE him. Not crucify, but stone.
Well, as you probably already know, I believe that Jesus WAS stoned by the Jews and then hung on a tree until sundown. (Peter, in Acts, states a couple of times that the Jews slew Jesus and hung him on a tree).
All right ........... what's the 'fine point' here?
If Jesus actually lived in 33 AD as is supposed from the gospels ....... the Jews would NOT have had the authority to stone Jesus. Even Herod the Great had to get permission from Rome to strangle his own sons.
But if Jesus lived PRIOR TO the time of Pompey (before 63 BC), the Jews could do whatever the heck they wanted because they were under their own Hasmonean kingdom and laws.
I never thought of this before but if these Jews were going to stone him, Jesus had to do some quick thinking and talking. He DIDN'T argue that it was illegal to stone him; he counter argued that he was within his right to be a "god" since the scriptures stated, "ye are gods".
at this example where Jesus is 'reaming out' the Pharisees .......
[ Luke 7:6,7
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Isaiah 29:13,14 KJV
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
Isaiah 29: 13,14 Septuagint
13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
14 Therefore behold I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent. ]
Then he proceeded to offer a long lecture to the Pharisees from there and they said nothing back to him.
Now, do you suppose the learned Pharisees would have meekly listened to him as he quoted this passage to them in Greek, when the translation wasn't even accurate?
And Jesus HIMSELF would have quoted the inaccurate Septuagint to the Hebrew Pharisees ............. if he was God?~ LOL.
