| Subject: "Logos" and Bible Study |
Author:
Theo Book
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:56:13 03/30/08 Sun
Author Host/IP: cpe-72-184-206-15.tampabay.res.rr.com/72.184.206.15
Do you have any idea how many people begin bible study with John 1:1 as their starting point? Is it any wonder they conclude God is a trinity? John 1:1 is not the beginning of the bible. It is really only twenty-one chapters from the end.
It helps if you understand that John was not the first book written. Too any Christians will begin with John 1:1 and PROVE everything from that one verse. It becomes the only "proof-text" they need when they are promoting "yabut" religion.
What is "yabut" religion? It is a way of responding in a religious debate. No matter what scripture you present, and no matter what argument you make for it, they will respond with "yabut" ("yes" becomes yah!, "but" remains; and they combine to become "yabut") and then present you with John 1:1 as the end all and be all of scripture understanding.
Genesis was written long before John penned his fine epistles. And when John wrote about God's logos, he did not give the meaning to the word, it had already been established in 62 books of the bible, over several hundred years. (The Penteteuch being written about 400 b.c.)
It also helps to understand something about when the books of the New Testament were written. It helps to understand that they were not written to unbelievers, but to believers, to help them adjust to new understanding of a new way of a new life.
CHRONOLOGY AUTHOR/BOOK
45 JAMES/James
48 Paul/GALATIONS
50 Paul/1st Epistle to THESSALONIANS
51 Paul/2nd Epistle to THESSALONIANS
52 MATTHEW/Gospel of Mathew
54/55 Paul/1st Epistle to CORINTHIANS (SPRING)
Paul/2nd Epistle to CORINTHIANS (FALL)
56 Paul/Epistle to ROMANS
58 LUKE/Gospel of Luke
60 Paul/Epistle to COLOSSIANS
Paul/Epistle to EPHESIANS
Paul/Epistle to PHILEMON
61 Paul/epistle to PHILIPPIANS
Luke/ACTS Of Apostles
64/65 Paul/1st Epistle to TIMOTHY
Paul/Epistle to TITUS
Peter/1 PETER
66/67 Peter/2 PETER
67/68 Paul/2nd Epistle to TIMOTHY
68/70 Unknown/HEBREWS
John/REVELATION
Mark/Gospel of MARK
75 JUDE/Epistle of Jude
85/90 John/1st Epistle of JOHN
John/2nd Epistle of JOHN
John/3rd Epistle of JOHN
96 John/GOSPEL OF JOHN
I know some disagree with this chronology, but I will not argue the point with them. I only offer it because it helps to have a starting point in understanding.
So, if you want to know something about "logos" for example, you don't begin with John's gospel, which was probably the LAST book written, but rather start with Genesis, and read through all the bible to see what meaning has already been established when John uses the word to make his point.
Logos always means a concept, idea, or something of similar meaning. It Never means a person. A person may be given a name, but that does not mean the person takes on the meaning of the name. And when someone personifies the principles contained in the idea, we understand that the idea has been personified by that person.
Life magazine, sixtieth anniversary issue, page 42 states it this way concerning Colonel Charles Lindberg; "The first man to fly from North America to Europe was the American dream made flesh..."
I do not know of ANYONE who thinks the American dream, having once been personified, is no longer available for others to personify. Any person who fulfills the American dream, personifies it; and any person who fulfills God's word, personifies it; and the logos becomes flesh (is personified) all over again.
The agonies of Jesus' death will never be felt by generations of men who follow after, but yet, Paul describes Christians as "always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body." [2 Cor 4:10]
So Christians can personify the death of Jesus, and his life, without becoming Jesus. "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ LIVETH IN ME:" [Gal 2:20] Paul says Christians personify the life of Christ. And John said Jesus personified the logos of God. And John and Paul both said that Christians both heard, and kept the logos of God; but Paul said the logos of God can be corrupted, and was by some men. [2 Cor 2:17] "For we are not as many which corrupt the logos of God..."
The logos of God can be corrupted, but Jesus Christ, no man can corrupt. Jesus is not the logos of God, he is the personification of the logos of God. And he did it so well, that he was given a name, "logos of God" which was written [Rev 19:12-13], similar to the names written on the forheads and garments of the saints in Revelation.
It is similar to when men brand cattle, to indicate possession. They identify that which belongs to them by writing their name, or some identifying mark upon those things they possess. God writes his name on those who belong to him, and identifies his enemies the same way. This happens to Christians [Rev 2:17][Rev 14:1], and to the harlot of Babylon [Rev 17:5], and to Christ [Rev 19:12-13][Rev 19:16].
It also helps to understand that once God identifies himself in the first-person-singular, as creator, it does not make any sense at all to try to make it fit by squeezing it into John 1:1. Rather, John 1:1 must be understood in the CONTEXT of a first-person-singular God.
But "Orthodoxy" thinks they invented context, and only they have the right to identify it. Any study of Homiletics can show that a context is assigned by men, and men can do with it what they will. In sermon preparation (Homiletics), one may take the entire bible as a context; or a single two word verse (Jesus Wept); and all points in between.
The context of a sermon is what ever the speaker makes it. So also is the context of a study; we may study a comparison of Hebrew thought processes and Gentile thought processes; or we may study Nehushtan, and all its significance to Christianity; again we may study why Jesus wept; and so on endlessly. The context of our study is whatever we make it.
The context of a verse may be the paragraph in which it is found, or it may be the subject under which it is studied, or it may be the word under consideration; contexts may vary with the same verse. For example
"love" may be studied by examining every word that is translated into the English word "love;" or it may follow the developmental patterns laid out by Jesus in his sermon on the mount; or it may be discovered in the Greek of Jesus' confrontation with Peter; or various and sundry other contexts and/or contextual considerations.
But to say a verse is "taken out of context" says nothing. The context must be defined for the argument. If I am showing how logos is used throughout scripture, someone may have a preconceived concept of the meaning and application of "logos" in John 1:1 and conclude "You are taking it out of context." That is the danger of studying the bible beginning with the New Testament, and John 1:1 as a starting place. It misleads the student.
Scripture does not start with John 1:1, in fact it almost ends there. Why then would I begin with it? Unless I wanted to establish a particular doctrine right at the start of the study, there is absolutely no sense for beginning a study of scripture at its end.
Genesis is as good a starting place for scripture study as any in the bible. Then again, the book of Job would be another, or even Psalms, or Proverbs, as they all address "beginning" things.
Job establishes forever, the need of man for a mediator. Orthodox Christianity thinks Job is simply a book about suffering. What a sad commentary on theologians, that they have convinced people that this is the value of Job.
As for the "us" language in Genesis as in "Let us make man" Orthodosy claims it as proof of a trinity. That is because they are limiting their "context" to Gen 1:26.
The true "context" of creation is much broader, and explains very well, how it is proper for God to use
"Elohiym" and say "us" without including a trinitarian concept of who he is.
Look at the eighth Proverb "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. When there were no depths, I was brought forth when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled before the hills was I brought forth; while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, not the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he set a compass upon the face of the depth; When he established the clouds above; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep; When he gave to the sea his decree that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth; Then I was by him as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. [Proverb 8:22-31]
Look for more "context" about creation and wisdom:
"O Lord, how manifold are thy works! In WISDOM hast thou made them all:..." [Psa 104:24]
"To him that by WISDOM made the heavens..." [Psa 136:5]
"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his WISDOM..." [Jer 10:12; 51:15]
Scripture is replete with verses supplying context for a study of Wisdom's part in the creative process. But "orthodoxy" throws that all aside and says "No, everyone knows Jesus was Wisdom in the beginning."
That directky contradicts Paul's statement that Jesus was "made wisdom to us" [1 Cor 1:30]; and it also contradicts Isa 42:5 which state "El Jehovah" created us, and Mal 2:10 "one El created us." El is singular, not plural. Jehovah is El, and Jesus is El's son. One el created us, not two.
And Wisdom is Elohiym, according to Gen 1:26 "Let us make man" because God and wisdom created everything. But God tells us that Wisdom is not a God when he says no other God is beside him, before him, or after him; and when he tells us he alone created everything; therefore, Elohiym doe snot MEAN God, it rather references thse entities that are immortal in some fashion or other.
Abraham is called "Elohiym" while still living [Gen 23:6], and Samuel the prophet is called Elohiym after he died [1 Sam 28:13]; Jesus was called "Elohiym" after his resurrection [Heb 1:8], all immortal in some fashion or other.
Then when the context changes to the new creation, we learn a whole new set of parameters; Through Christ all things are made new and that Jesus made all things new according to the concept of God, his logos. "All things became by it; and without it nothing became that has become" [John 1:3]
This contradicts no other concept or verse found in scripture. Even Colossians verifies this when it says "For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, WHETHER THEY BE thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him." [Col 1:16].
Why is it trinitarians always leave out part of the "context" while crying "context" for the part they want? That little 'WHETHER THEY BE" is an integral part of the same context that says "all things." Yet I am told I am "taking it out of context" when in reality I am applying it TO the context.
To properly study scripture, one should see how a word is used by the same author, within the same book; then see if its use changes in other books, first by the same author, then by other authors. A list should be made depicting the variety of uses, and any changes.
If a constant is detected, it should be applied to the same word in the New Testament, until and unless it contradicts previous scripture. It MUST NOT be allowed to be controlled by later scripture, as later scripture does not control what has been written. It can only fulfill it.
Theophilus Book
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 