Personal, Fresh Revelation!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If A = B exactly and totally then B = A. However if A is a proper subset of B, then B is not a subset of A. I would say the statement "The Word is God" is closer to subsets than equality.Consider this. The Word was with God. If the Word is with God this implies that the Word is not God (because we know God is one so anything with him cannot be him). So if we take the statement the Word is God by itself, then we might assume that the Word = God. However, if we take the statement "the Word was with God" then we would be forced to assume the Word is not equal to God. Both of these things cannot be true if we accept these statements as both implying equality in the traditional sense. In other words, both of the statements the Word is God and the Word is with God cannot both be used to imply equality.

I appreciate your logic, but I disagree with you.

Or maybe we're meaning the same ting, but saying it differently-- that kind of thing happens in these kinds of discussions.



If I were to record you on an audio tape, and then play the tape back, would I be hearing you?

Would I be able to say, "That is you."

Now are you that tape recorder?
Are you that tape on the reel?
No.


Now the Son of God is the Word of God made flesh.
In Jesus, we have more than an audio recording of the Father.

When we speak, we don't visibly create anything, but the Old Testament says that God spoke the world into existence. The New Testament says that Jesus created the world. The only way for both to be true is for Jesus to be the physical embodiment of the Word of God.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

JFrog and others, You need to understand that in the greek, when John wrote this, he was not intending to say "he" for the sake of identifying the Logos as another person. In greek logos is a masculine noun and in greek nouns and pronouns MUST agree in number, case and gender.

In other words had the noun logos been neuter John would have called the Logos an 'it'.

nowhere was my arguement based off the pronoun he

[Jermyn Davidson]

However, all of this is off the subject of what I am happy about.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I appreciate your logic, but I disagree with you.

Or maybe we're meaning the same ting, but saying it differently-- that kind of thing happens in these kinds of discussions.



If I were to record you on an audio tape, and then play the tape back, would I be hearing you?

Would I be able to say, "That is you."

Now are you that tape recorder?
Are you that tape on the reel?
No.


Now the Son of God is the Word of God made flesh.
In Jesus, we have more than an audio recording of the Father.

When we speak, we don't visibly create anything, but the Old Testament says that God spoke the world into existence. The New Testament says that Jesus created the world. The only way for both to be true is for Jesus to be the physical embodiment of the Word of God.

I think we are saying two different things, though alot of times you are right that people just say the same thing differently.

I like your analogy of a tape recorder. Not sure where to really go with it though but I like the thought.

My biggest point is be careful that you don't get so caught up thinking the word was God, that you forget that the word was with God. John depicts a thing that is simultaneosuly separate from God (by being with God) and the same as God (by being God). Don't forget about the seperateness in your explanations.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

However, all of this is off the subject of what I am happy about.

oh, what are you happy about?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The Word, he that was with God, he made all things, in him was life, and he was made flesh.

The Word, he that was God, he made all things, in him was life, and he was made flesh.

Both of these are needed to form the biblical concept The Word.

God cannot be with God right? Isn't that the contention of oneness with the trinity? But John speaks, he that was with God, he was God. He that was God, he was with God.

So The Word who was God, was with God... Yet God cannot be with God... It's really quite to much to put your head around I think :/

Originally Posted by Praxeas

JFrog and others, You need to understand that in the greek, when John wrote this, he was not intending to say "he" for the sake of identifying the Logos as another person. In greek logos is a masculine noun and in greek nouns and pronouns MUST agree in number, case and gender.

In other words had the noun logos been neuter John would have called the Logos an 'it'.

Ok, well you used the pronoun several times so it did seem like it

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by jfrog

oh, what are you happy about?

I am happy about clearly understanding to how Jesus Christ pre-existed before Bethlehem.

As the Word of God.

He's always existed as the Word of God.

[Scott Hutchinson]

When all things began,the Word already was.The Word dwelt with God,and what God was,the Word was.JOHN.1:1 From The New English bible.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

When all things began,the Word already was.The Word dwelt with God,and what God was,the Word was.JOHN.1:1 From The New English bible.

"dwelt" is a really bad translation. In fact the greek word for 'with' doesn't necessarily mean "with" or "with" to imply 2 objects or persons are standing in the same room with each other.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

"dwelt" is a really bad translation. In fact the greek word for 'with' doesn't necessarily mean "with" or "with" to imply 2 objects or persons are standing in the same room with each other.

What does the Greek Word "with" mean then prax and are there any other new testament examples of the word?