[Kosh]

Nuclear1 pwns another hapless victim......

[lostllama]

Ah, you Logos to mean a God's divine plan, that makes sense, I assumed that you understood logos to be Jesus.

It was a nice discussion and I don't blame you for assuming, many people don't know what they believe or why and I assumed I think twice in this thread alone. I'm always willing to learn something new so I have a good understanding of the things that I believe. ;-) Thing about God is it takes assumptions to have faith He exist. As far as the criteria of adequacy is concerned it's not as superior of a theory as the belief in a purely natural world. Mainly because you must assume He exist and my reasons are purely philosophical. You seem to know a lot about the subject that's not rare around here but not common either.  Did or do you study this?

Just noticed this little side-topic, so I thought I'd add a post on here, I hope no-one minds. I'm not a specialist on the Bible, its verses or translation, although I guess I have more than a passing interest in religion/spirituality. I'm currently reading Karen Armstrong's "A History of God", which in part covers the concept of God as a Trinity. The Trinity concept seems to have been introduced to portray God as being more complex and mysterious than perhaps the Bible suggests, if I'm remembering what I read correctly.

I've also read some of Jason BeDuhn's "Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament." He compares selected verses from several different translations (King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, The Amplified Bible, The Living Bible, Today's English Version and New World Translation) and explores the accuracy and bias within the translation of those verses. He also gives a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of using different translation approaches such as lexical, literal and "dynamic equivalence" translation methods. He claims he's a committed historian (not a theologian, so that suggests he doesn't have a bias in a theological regard; I'm not sure if he has any personal religious beliefs) with knowledge of Koine Greek and how people living during the days of the New Testament would've likely interpreted it, so he puts forward the idea that he's a neutral investigator on this subject. I picked it up because I think it's interesting to see why some Christians stick to particular translations over others, and because the author seems to have an unbiased view on the subject.

I haven't finished all of the book yet, but on the subject of John 1:1-2 he concludes that the NWT has the best, but not the most perfect, translation ("...and the Word was a god"), although he personally says he would've chosen the word "divine" in place of "a god", to establish God and Jesus as being of the same "class" of being.

On the subject of the logos, I thought I'd include this extract as to why he reckons John chose that noun.

To many modern Christians, living in their safe, homogenous world of like-minded believers, the issue seems straightforward. There is the one God, and on the other side of a great gulf are all of the creatures. But in John's world, the god-category was not as sharply distinguished as it is for modern Christians, and there were all kinds of beings occupying the gray area between God and mortals. There were various angels and demi-gods to consider. Not that the New Testament writers and other early Christians accepted the exact same definition of these categories as their non-Christian contemporaries and potential converts did. But in reaching out to this audience, one had to start with shared language and concepts, and build a new understanding from there. Indeed, in Paul's letters and the anonymous Letter to the Hebrews, these other beings are a big concern, as the Christian writers argue for Christ's superiority over them. Whatever these biblical authors knew to be true, they had to communicate it within the concepts of their audience as much as possible. You can move readers to new understandings and insights, but to do so you have to make contact at some point with something they already know or believe to be true. That is the challenge particularly of religious communication.

One being on the borderline between God and the rest of creation in ancient thinking was the logos, believed by certain Jews and Greeks alike to be the creative, ordering energy, thought, or speech by which the universe is made and sustained. John picks this already known concept as the key to explaining Jesus' super-human status and character. It was a brilliant choice, because the relation of the logos to God, according to those who discussed the concept among both Christian and non-Christian thinkers, is as close as can be without simply disappearing into God, and yet not so distinct as to alienate those committed to monotheism (for example, Philo, the Jewish philosopher from Alexandria who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul). Christians still disagree about how to interpret John's language, and how to make it fit precise physical and philosophical categories of being. Some even question whether trying to make it fit something so technically precise is a worthwhile endeavor. But wherever these lines of interpretation go, it was John who took the first crucial step towards understanding Jesus to have a divine quality within him, which John identified with the ordering principle, the logos, of God.

A failure to grasp the nuance of John's thought can be seen in how several translations inappropriately introduce the male pronoun "he" into John 1:1-2. In John 1:1 both the TEV and LB use the pronoun "he" for "the Word" at some point to reduce the redundancy of John saying "the Word" three times. A similar substitution of "he" can be seen in John 1:2 in the NASB, NIV, NRSV, NAB and the AB. In this case, "he" replaces houtos, "this one." By using "he" instead of "this one," all of these translations suggest that "the Word" is a male of some sort. The AB and the LB seem to reveal the erroneous thinking behind this translation choice, when they simply substitute "Christ" for "the Word." But the Word is not Christ in the Gospel according to John. The Word is a divine being intimately associated with God that at a point in time "becomes flesh," and only then, when the Word is flesh, can one say we are dealing with Christ. The Word, as we have seen, is not really a "he." It is a divine being or agency that transcends human qualities. It becomes (or becomes a part of) a "he" by "becoming flesh" as, or in, Jesus Christ. Only the KJV and NW accurately maintain John's careful, non-personal language for the Word in this phase of its existence, before it "becomes flesh" and, in the progress, becomes a "he."

I have no doubt that the wording of John 1:1 is careful and deliberate in its every detail. John was doing a very tricky thing: trying to express Jesus' exalted status without violating monotheism. This has been a challenging task throughout Christian history, and John was the first person to tackle it. I think we owe it to him, therefore, to stick as closely to his words as we can, and not contort them into something else.

As to the Conservapedia article, I feel that concepts of conservatism or liberalism shouldn't be applied to the scriptures in order to change them to make it appear as though one man-made ideology is supported more than another. That stems from my opinion that religion should be kept completely outside of politics and vice versa, otherwise one's religious beliefs can end up being directly imposed on others.

P.S. In case you're wondering, I can't say that I'm religious, but I guess I'm somewhat spiritually aware and open-minded to religious points of view.

[jdjtcagle]

Lostlama:

I think that was a very interesting read, thanks for posting.  I agree with him that the "he" introduced into translations is a mistake and I believe comes from the masculinity of the term Logos, in turn Trinitarians would say it was a person.  I also completely agree with John's use of Logos was deliberate for it's recognizable meaning in Greek philosophy and thought which considered logos to mean that reason or wisdom as the controlling principle of the universe.

Philo of Alexandria and many others (Jehovah Witnesses) came to interpret logos as a lesser being, which I do not believe the bible teaches.  IF John was saying the word was with God and the word was a god.  Then yes.  But there are plenty of other scriptures refuting Jesus as a lesser diety and more as God himself. (the word was God aka incarnation)

The problem Christians have is to determine how to reconcile the passages linking Jesus as God and also Jesus separate from God.  Trinitarians are on one side of the extreme, saying that there are three seperate persons in the Godhead.  Modalistic Monarchianism is the other extreme showing no distinction between Father and Son.  Oneness I believe avoids the Achilles heel of properly placing the distinction between Father and Son.  The nature of Christ is one that has been debated over for centuries and Paul even knew of it's difficulty to understand calling it a great mystery, but also revealing it in the same breath. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…" (I Timothy 3:16) We can know the mystery of God and the Father, which is Christ (Colossians 2:2; see also the NIV and TAB). In fact, Paul also explained this mystery by saying that in Jesus Christ dwells all the wisdom, knowledge, and fulness of God (Colossians 2:3, 9). The mystery of God has been revealed to us by God's Spirit (I Corinthians 2:7-10).The mystery of God in flesh was a great stumbling block to the Jews. They never could understand how Jesus, being a man, could also be God (John 10:33). Because He claimed to be God they rejected Him and sought to kill Him (John 5:18; 10:33).

27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:27-28)
Paul described Jesus as "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13; NIV has "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"). Peter described Him as "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1:1; NIV and TAB both have "our God and Savior Jesus Christ").  

Jesus is even seen to be Yahweh Himself in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 40:3 prophesied that a voice in the wilderness would cry, "Prepare ye the way of the LORD" (Yahweh); Matthew 3:3 says John the Baptist is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Of course, we know that John prepared the way of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since the name Yahweh was the sacred name for the one God, the writers of scripture would not apply it to anyone other than the Holy One of Israel; here it is applied to Jesus.  Isaiah prophesied that the glory of the LORD would be revealed to all flesh (Isaiah 40:5). Since Yahweh said He would not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11), we know He could only fulfill this prophecy by revealing Himself. Indeed, we find in the New Testament that Jesus had the glory of the Father (John 1:14; 17:5). He is the Lord of glory (I Corinthians 2:8). When Jesus comes again, He will come in the glory of the Father (Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38). Since Jesus has Jehovah's glory, He must be Jehovah. When Paul, (the educated Jew and the Pharisee of Pharisees) the fanatic persecutor of Christianity, was stricken on the road to Damascus by a blinding light from God, he asked, "Who art thou, Lord?" As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, "Who are you, Yahweh?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus" (Acts 9:5)

There are so many I can't go through them all but I've done a few in my other posts as well. In any case you see my point.

[Topgun]

As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, "Who are you, Yahweh?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus" (Acts 9:5)

but how do we know that?
YHWH is not present in the preserved New Testament writings, it was replaced with the word Kyrios. although we can safely amuse that they used some pronunciation of YHWH, evidenced by the Septuaginta, we honestly don't know when in the original greek scriptures was the name Jehovah is used.

[jdjtcagle]

As a Jew, he knew there was only one God and Lord, and he was asking, "Who are you, Yahweh?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus" (Acts 9:5)

but how do we know that?
YHWH is not present in the preserved New Testament writings, it was replaced with the word Kyrios. although we can safely amuse that they used some pronunciation of YHWH, evidenced by the Septuaginta, we honestly don't know when in the original greek scriptures was the name Jehovah is used.

I think you misunderstood my line of reasoning. I'm aware that the word kyrios was used instead of the tetragrammaton and that there is no way grammatically to tell when God is spoken of in the New Testament unless of-course it was quoted from the Old. Basically what I'm saying here is that... who else would Lord be to a devout Jew?  He was a pharisee and a persecutor of Christians and their movement. He believe in only YHWH of the Old Testament. When he asked who are you Lord?  It's only logical that he wasn't concerned about anyone but YHWH.

Jesus is the equivalent of YHWH of the Old Testament above is just one example, here are some others.

Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace." The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father."

Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be called Immanuel, that is, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:22-23).

YHWH is our only creator:

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
"I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,

Isaiah 45:8
8"Drip down, O heavens, from above,
And let the clouds pour down righteousness;
Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit,
And righteousness spring up with it.
I, the LORD, have created it.

Isaiah 48:13
13"Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.

Jesus is our Creator:

1 Corinthians 8:6
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, (Not Father, Son, Holy Spirit - Meaning if Jesus is God then they revered Him as the Father) from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

John 1:3
3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Colossians 1:16
16For 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 through Him and for Him.

YHWH the First and the Last:

Isaiah 41:4
4"Who has performed and accomplished it,
Calling forth the generations from the beginning?
I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last I am He.'"

Isaiah 44:6
6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.

Isaiah 48:12
12"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.

Jesus the first and the last:

Revelation 1:8
 8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 22:13
13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

There are the same parallels with the terms Almighty, Rock, Horn of Salvation, Shepherd, King of Glory, Light, Lord of lords, Holy One, Only Savior, Giver of Spiritual Water, King of Israel, ect. But there is really no escaping the fact that the bible does indeed teach that the One God of the Old Testament is Jesus of the new. Now either the bible is just mistaken or there is faulty logic in believing that Jesus is a separate deity than the Father or YHWH of the Old Testament.