Logos – Part 1: The OT Record

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-10-30 13:13:41

Just a quick note. I've been working on my dissertation for almost 20 years and it's still up for revision. :)
Moral: The learning curve doesn't end even when you've gone full circle.

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-10-30 17:07:52

Thank you Meleti for this fine article. There is a lot of fine thought that went into this. I appreciate your non-dogmatic approach.

Comment by ilovejesus333 on 2014-10-30 18:59:51

This is an interesting topic

• Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-10-30 22:12:02

  By this I mean if the word was there in the beginning (referring to Jesus John 1 ;14 the word became flesh) and this is interesting, The word existed before he became flesh what role as the word would he need to play back then before creation, after all there were no humans or angels yet created. We also know that Jesus in the scriptures is referred to as the word of God. Was this a commission "being the word" that Jesus would exercise at a later date. and if so why?
  Just wondering!

  • Reply by on 2014-10-31 11:03:16

    Excellent point. What need was there for the Word of God before there was anyone to speak to in God's Name?
    John 1:1 is purposely taking us back to Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning..." thus the Word was with God at the "beginning" of creation when as you astutely pointed out there would be a need for the Logos, the Word of God.
    God is our Creator, our Father, Judge and eternal Life Giver. It is not out of the realm of reasonableness that His Son should also have several titles, titles which reflect the various offices/places of honor he himself holds; Logos being one of them.
    Daytona

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 11:22:39

      I no longer see it as a title, but his name, his first name, and arguably his foremost name. This is where we go wrong as Jehovah's Witnesses. We think "the Word" means that Jesus was given the role of God's spokesman. "Logos" equals "Spokesman". We amend that to "Chief Spokesman" because others are protrayed in the Bible as God's spokesmen but none are called his Word. I go into more detail in the article, "What Is the Word According to John?", but the main point is that using "the Word" to represent Jesus as God's spokesman is too narrow a definition. Isaiah 55:11 indicates that Jehovah's Word is more than his utterances. He said, "Let there be light, and there was light." His word is reality. He speaks and things come into being. In the beginning of all things, God spoke and his Word went forth and did not return to him without results. The creation of the heavens and physical universe specifically.

    • Reply by on 2014-10-31 11:49:09

      Meleti:
      "I no longer see it as a title, but his name, his first name, and arguably his foremost name."
      In the Bible names are not just names more often than not they are designations of a man's legacy and so Abram became Abraham etc. The name Logos reflects the place which God's Son holds in and before all creation. Is there a higher position in creation than to be the One who stands as the Image of God himself? No. And as that Image the Logos speaks what God speaks and by means of God's spirit causes God's Will to occur throughout all creation.
      "Our Father in the heavens...", was taught to us by the Word known to men as Jesus Christ. God is "Father" in name; we call Him Father. God is Father in Title he is the Father of all creation.
      Daytona

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 12:03:32

        Agreed, about the way names are viewed in Bible times and in the Bible itself. However, I don't agree that Father is a name anymore than God is a name.

    • Reply by on 2014-10-31 17:58:00

      Meleti: "However, I don’t agree that Father is a name anymore than God is a name."
      Neither then is the word "Logos" for in scripture it is stated with the definite article preceding it something which "names" do not have. ;)
      Your point on the word "Father" is well taken it is a common noun not a proper noun. Proper nouns are unique so we do not say "the" Jesus or "the" Jehovah but we do say "the" Logos. We may not like it but it is what it is. Logos is not a proper noun. For if it were John might have written: In the beginning was Logos...but he did not.
      Daytona

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 18:11:58

        With respect, I think you've missed my point. John says it is a name. For us, a phrase like "the Word of God" cannot be a name. Nevertheless, John under inspiration said it was, so we have to accept that and learn from it. As I said in this and other articles, a name in Hebrew is much more than an appellation or label. It embodies the character of the person. That John chose to apply a phrase like "The Word of God" to Jesus and call this his name "in the beginning" is intended to convey a deeper meaning than to say this was his title in the beginning. A title does not represent the unique character of the person. There are many gods, but only one Jehovah. I can say "my God tells me..." but I would never say "my Jehovah tells me..." There is an aspect to a name that implies uniqueness. While others in this world are called Jesus, when we use his name to refer to him, it represents a unique person. In that sense, "The Word of God" is unique. No one can rightly be called the Word of God except Jesus. Being a unique representation of his character, of what he is and all that he represents, it is a most fitting name. My use of Logos was merely a bit of artistic license in an effort to bridge the gap because to our Western mentality and the concept that John was trying to convey. I explained this in the article but perhaps not well enough.

    • Reply by on 2014-10-31 21:37:28

      Meleti: "With respect, I think you’ve missed my point. John says it is a name. For us, a phrase like “the Word of God” cannot be a name. Nevertheless, John under inspiration said it was, so we have to accept that and learn from it."
      I guess I have a different perspective on it. For me Logos is a designation, an appointment, an office. We can have a "name" as a member of a particular group such as:"But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God," (Rom 2:17); many Christians view the word Christ almost as Jesus' last name but we know it is not his name it is his office as Messiah.
      In Revelation 19 Christ has several names: a name unknown to us; the name The Word of God; the name "King of Kings and Lord of Lords." In my opinion the two known to us are descriptive of an office and appointment not personal names. But I understand why you might think otherwise and respect your stand on that.
      Rev 19:12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
      Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
      Rev 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (caps from NASB)
      Daytona

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 22:55:36

        I see your point, but in that sense are not all names just designations. Jehovah renamed Abram because he was now going to be the father of a nation. Abraham was his new name or if you like, his new designation, assigned to him by Jehovah. Likewise Jacob was redesignated Israel. Yet, he was still called Jacob even centuries later. We're now close to the stage of arguing over words. As you point out, name in Hebrew can apply to things our modern mind does not commonly associate with a name, things like "King of Kings". But in the instances you have pointed out, there is quality of uniqueness for only Jesus is called King of Kings--Jehovah existing outside of every frame of reference. So I put it to you that name or designation, we are talking about the same thing. Since the Bible uses name to refer to "the Word of God", let's stick with that and not call it a title.

  • Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-10-31 21:04:35

    You are getting a lot of response for this topic Meliti and I would like to echo the sentiments you wisely declared at the beginning of this discussion ; Quote -
    No one should think that by these crude attempts we are seeking to establish our thoughts as doctrine. That is not our way. Having freed ourselves from the religious straitjacket of Pharisaical orthodoxy,
    I certainly do not want to go back to that " straitjacket " of expression so I commend you for giving us the opportunity through this forum to discuss our thoughts so here are my thoughts on the logos for what it's worth!
    I think the Word in the beginning was commisioned for a purpose. God could never create something bad however the first human pair were given a command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad Gen 2;17. We all know the oucome of that command. Next in Gen 3;22 we hear the words of Jehovah: " Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad".Adam initially lacked that knowledge. But just prior to this almost immediately in Gen 3;15 a plan of action was put in place which would eventually attone man for their sin through the WORD (the seed). Could Jehovah have known in advance what would happen. I recognise that he gave man free will and the man exercised tthat will resulting in sin, in other words man brought all this upon himself and therefore no blame can be put upon Jehovah. Man could have been created without that free will and worship Jehovah in a robotic almost programmed fashion. But now he knew both good and bad because of the sin.
    Now here is my analogy and believe me i have thought about this long and hard for many years. Was everything supposed to happen with man as it did? Please don't say "Would you ask a child to put his hand in the fire" That would be a Witness response and easily answered.
    How can we grow and appreciate what is good without ever knowing bad?
    How can we fully understand light if we have only experienced darkness?
    Warmth if there was no coldness
    Can we fully grow and cultivate even appreciate love without ever knowing evil?
    The first prophesy recorded in the scriptures is Gen 3;15 enabling man a second chance through the provision of Christ's ransom sacrafice.Remember Jehovah could have simply destroyed us all back then.
    John 3;16 For God loved the world so much he gave his only begotten son that we may have life.
    We can now really understand what it means to love. Just think what Jesus went through on that torture stake, the pain and suffering I cannot imagine, and all for us sinners. Imagine this love Jehovah and Jesus had for us. We have to grow in that love too and emulate Jesus when he said in Mt 23;37-39 Love Jehovah with your whole heart, mind and soul and in verse 39 love your neighbor as yourself. These are the two greatest commandments.
    John 15;12 Love one another just as I have loved you, Jesus loved us so much he laid down his life for us.
    Knowing all this "the good the bad and the ugly" we can now grow in this love, appreciate this love and worship our creator having experienced what the bad in our lives has to offer.
    If Adam had truly loved his creator I think it very unlikely he would have sinned in the first place.
    John 1;1 In the beginning could the word have been commissioned for a purpose?
    Sorry for the rant - I brought this up with my two Witness friends but won't tell you their response towards me. Please be aware all this is only supposition on my part without the restraint of any organisational straitjacket.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 23:07:51

      You make some interesting and valid points.
      Adding to the equation are these factors: There were millions, or billions, of angels who had lived in light, free of the darkness of sin for eons of time. Eventually one of them sinned. Jehovah didn't plan that as a way to teach them about darkness, but in the field of probabilities it would be seen as inevitable. After all, if it were impossible for creatures of free will ever to sin, then they wouldn't have free will.
      Satan's sin skewed the results for humans. While myriads of angels had lived for millions or billions of years without sin, the first human pair failed from the get-go. The difference is that they were tempted, corrupted while young by an outside party.
      That surely was not part of anyone's plan, except perhaps Satan's.

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-11-01 23:34:45

      One way to view this is that, from the time the 'plans' to build a human were first put 'drawn up', the possibility that he would use his inherent free will unwisely was already considered and planned for. It could be that before Adam was ever created the Logos was already slated to be the one who would come down and straighten things out. So I don't believe the first couple's sin was something that took Jehovah by surprise. It was just, 'oh, they took option B; put plan B in motion then'.

Comment by on 2014-10-30 19:38:28

"Hints and clues to his true nature are sprinkled throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, but they can only have meaning in hindsight. His true nature, in fact, his very existence, could not have been deduced with the information available at that time to God’s pre-Christian servants. Only in retrospect can those Scriptures round out our understanding of Logos."
True. When a fetus is within the womb it knows only the warmth, comfort and nourishment provided by its mother within that safe environment. It knows nothing of its father until the day dawns and the seemingly eternal night of the womb gives way to the sudden light of day and their father's beautiful face comes into view.
The Hebrew Scriptures were the womb, the Greek Scriptures the record of that day when their eyes fell upon their "Eternal Father", the Son of God, the Logos, the Messiah. Then like that emerging infant who afterward remembers there were sounds of another voice coming into their forming ears but they could not discern it...so too Christ's disciples could go again into the womb of the Hebrew Scriptures and find there the unrecognized voice of the Logos.
Christ's disciples had available to them the Greek Septuagint. Perhaps when John wrote his Gospel Psalm 33:6 may have come to mind as it is written not in the Hebrew language but in the Greek, the Septuagint: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." In the Septuagint "word" in that scripture is "logos" (G3056).
John may have found comfort when reading: "By the logos of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth," - whispers of the Logos even in the womb.
Daytona

• Reply by on 2014-10-31 10:00:24

  Adding to my post above:
  The divinity of the Son of God is expressed as the Logos in heaven, the divinity of the Son of God is expressed as Jesus the Christ on earth; Immanuel. Both in heaven and on earth the Son speaks what his Father speaks and in so doing the Son is God both in form and Word.
  Daytona

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 16:17:59

    Daytona,
    "in so doing, the Son is God both in form and word."
    This is type of statement that needs to be clarified; otherwise, readers will think you are promoting the idea of a Trinity or at least a Duality.

    • Reply by on 2014-10-31 17:30:33

      The Son is cast in the mold of the Father he is therefore in the form of the Father; to see the Son is to see the Father. The Son is (a) God but he is not God Almighty.
      Daytona

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 17:57:24

        Thanks Daytona. It seems we are of one mind on this.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-02 11:20:04

    Hello , Daytona I've missed you and your thoughts dearly on this site.
    Meleti-This meaty article and the subsequent meaty comments are fascinating! A picture is definitely emerging for me and I feel my view shifting. I could talk about the nature of the logos all day long (your comments about define articles went over my head so I hope "the" is accurate :) ) I can't wait to dig deeper.
    I eagerly await Apollos' article to help me reach a personal conclusion. Btw I can tell that your view has shifted a bit;) As always I find your willingness to admit that and your humility refreshing. (I say this as the friends are commenting on the "slaves" loyalty question put forth in the WT. "What convinces you that
    Dare I say that your view Daytona has also shifted a bit; ) I appreciate your bible based convictions and common sense approach to subjects like these.....

Comment by Peter on 2014-10-30 19:51:18

As I was reading your first part of your post on this subject on the WORD. something else that I would add is the statement on John 1:3 which is reminiscent of Paul's words in 1 Cor. 8:6 reading those words, comes to mind the words found in Genesis chap 1 as your read you will find statements where it says " And God SAID. over and over. what comes to my mind in reading the Hebrew text, like Psalm 33:6 it says: By the WORD of Jehovah the heavens were made and by the breath of his MOUTH everything in them. In Gensis 1, the emphasis is on God's spoken WORD; in John 1 the emphasis is on the WORD himself. Now if you continue to look more like Psalm 107: 19, 20 : They would call to Jehovah for help in their distress; He would save them from their plight. He would send his WORD and heal them.... Isaiah 55:11 says : So my WORD that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight....
and Psalm 147:15 says: He sends his command to the earth; His WORD runs swiftly.
So what is the significance of these words? well to share my view it is this They are just another way of explaining how God, the Invisible One, carries out his will on earth. This is how he communicates with us and how he chooses to reveal himself.
What I find very interesting is how in the Aramaic Targums which are the translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew scriptures, that were read in the synagogues before,during, and after the time of Jesus. Those Targums arose because, in some locations, many of the Jewish people no longer understood Hebrew. so they grew up speaking and reading Aramaic, so they would follow the public reading of the scriptures only with the Aramaic translation...to give you an example, the text you Quoted in Genesis 3:8 the Targums read: And they heard the sound of the WORD of the LORD walking in the midst of the Garden. So as you can see the Targums made an adjustment, It was not Jehovah who was walking in the Garden it was the MEMRA ( WORD) this word was a HIM.
What you need to understand my brother is keep in mind that when reading these Targums, these were the official Translations used in the synagogues. here i only qoute just a few:
Genesis 1:27 = The Word of the Lord created Man. ( Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)
Genesis 6:6= And it repented the Lord through his Word that he made man on the earth.
Exodus 25:22= And I will appoint my Word for you there.
Leviticus 26:9 = And I will turn through my Word to do good to you.
What i find even more Intresting is the statement found in John 1:14 where in part says : So the word became flesh and resided among us or made his dwelling... the word in the greek text for resided is Tabernacle literally means lived in a tent, so the imagery of John is trying to convey to the hebrew people is that God pitched his tent among us and temporarily settled in our midst through his son Yeshua or Jesus. Look at the words found in Exodus 29:45..and Lev. 26: 11-12...think The God whom the heavens could not contain would dwell in the midst of his people in the Tabernacle and the Temple. ? How ? he would pitch his tent amaong us. So just as jehovah pitched his tent in the midst of his people, throught the tabernacle and the temple.
What john was getting at is Jesus is the replacement of the ancient tabernacle. In a very real sense, God was in the Temple, and in a very real sense, God was in his son...remember the words that Jesus said to philp in John 14: 9-10 read it. also read John 2:19. and at last read Exodus 40: 34-35..where it says the glory of jehovah filled the tabernacle. And with Jesus the Messiah john says 1:14 = We have seen his glory, the glory from the father, full of grace and truth. Let me be clear i am not advocating the trinity in any way in my statements...but i do beleive it could be this misunderstanding of these hebraic concepts that might have lead to it besides other things...anyway my brother I just though i would share here some of my thoughts and understading on the subject..shalom.

Comment by Peter on 2014-10-30 20:23:10

Something else that came too mind that I had to share here is the words found in 2Cor. 4:4,6 the image there in those words speak volumes. When we see the Messiah's face we see the glory of God. The same thing happened to moses when he came down from the mount his face was emitting rays of light from his face...that thought made me to recollect of the text found in Hebrews 1: 3 it says = He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact image of his very being,....now if you look very carefully the words paul used, REFLECTION, IMAGE. ? What object comes to mind? a MIRROR. ? is not that what a mirrior does it only reflects the light or image, it does not become the source it reflects. so the same with his son Jesus. so by understanding this concept we have a better understanding of what john 1:1 meant. This is how our God Our father choose to reveal himself to man..by means of his son.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-30 21:14:31

  Thank you for sharing these thoughts and insights with us Peter. They will help greatly as I work on part 2 of this series. What a blessing our worldwide congregation is.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-02 18:51:54

  Peter these thoughts are fascinating!! I'm so overwhelmed by your comments.
  It's a beautiful thing. I think the refinements we received from each other in understanding truth is a testament to the God we serve and the Spirit he uses to teach us and each other.

Comment by anderestimme on 2014-10-30 21:27:17

Just to add something else to the mix, here's an excerpt from the foreward to William Dembski's book "Being as Communion":
"This book extends his earlier work and asks the most basic and challenging question confronting the 21st century, namely, if matter can no longer serve as the fundamental substance of reality, what can? While matter was the only allowable answer of the past century to the question of what is ultimately real (matter's origin, on its own terms, remaining a mystery), Dembski demonstrates there would be no matter without information, and certainly no life. He thus shows that information is more fundamental than matter and that intelligible effectual information is in fact the primal substance."
Information as the "primal substance" of the universe. In the beginning was information.

• Reply by anderestimme on 2014-10-30 21:40:15

  Mind you I'm not suggesting that calling Jesus "Information" would be appropriate, as if he were nothing more than an enormous universal encyclopedia. Also, 'Word' is not necessarily the best translation of "logos" - certainly not the only one. That most trustworthy of sources, Wikipedia, says:
  "The Greek word λόγος or logos is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as "Word" but can also mean thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. It has varied use in the fields of philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion."

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-10-31 08:29:56

When Witnesses use the scripture: "the Word of God is alive and excerts power" and apply it to Scripture I cringe a little.
To me, it talks about Jesus who is not dead, but alive, and in a position of authority and power.
At the same time, scripture is the visual proof or manifestation of his very being .. The Word.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-10-31 10:09:54

  I too reached this conclusion on my own quite some time ago, and have mentioned the idea to many since. But mostly I have received blank stares. Jesus is the one who "is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting" (Heb 4:12,13; Compare Matt 9:4; John 5:22; John 12:48; Acts 10:42; Rom 2:16; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:1; Rev 2:23; Rev 19:11).
  The identity of the Word of God clearly flows from Heb 4:12 into the following verse. An inanimate book, powerful as the Bible is, cannot do all of these things in itself.
  Apollos

• Reply by anderestimme on 2014-10-31 10:56:51

  Wow Alex. Having read that scripture a million times without reading its context, I never noticed that. But since verse 14 discusses Jesus' role as high priest, your conclusion makes a lot more sense than an out-of-left-field reference to scripture.

  • Reply by menrov on 2014-11-01 06:52:41

    Wow, like Anderestimme, I never came to that conclusion but it makes so much sense, and clarifies so much. Thanks for sharing.

• Reply by on 2014-11-01 03:18:47

  I also have come to that conclusion alex ive pondered over that one for years its says there is not a creation that is not manifested to HIS sight jesus himself seems to be linked to facets of gods word the bible . Common sense approach that one . Kev

• Reply by menrov on 2014-11-01 06:53:02

  Wow, like Anderestimme, I never came to that conclusion but it makes so much sense, and clarifies so much. Thanks for sharing.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-02 19:21:55

    Alex and Apollos could I add one more wow!! Fascinating!!!

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-10-31 10:11:15

A very interesting primer to the subject. Thanks for your work Meleti.
I most certainly do intend to write something on this most important topic. Unfortunately it won't be possible to follow your format in how you are breaking this down, because my perspective is a little different and it would end up becoming disjointed if I try to present my thoughts shadowing your grouping of ideas. Upon consideration I don't see any way but to provide a more complete view in a single article. Otherwise inter-splicing my articles with yours will be disjointed and confusing to the readers. This necessarily means that my attempt will take longer to complete, and may be less approachable than your “installment” format. However I will break down the subject matter into subheadings, and organize my thoughts and research in such a way that it can still be read in segments.
Thanks again for getting the ball rolling.
Apollos

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 10:52:31

  In all probability, if we both come at this topic using two different approaches, it will prove more beneficial to all. I wrestled back and forth for some time on how to broach the subject and finally settled on this, not because it was necessarily the best way, but it just seemed to flow for me.

Comment by Anjinsan on 2014-10-31 12:51:13

Interesting. Thanks to you and Appollos for the time and effort. Enjoyed the comments too...thanks all. I need to buy out time and enjoy these.

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-10-31 13:24:18

Meleti, upon reading your reference, i.e., “I go into more detail in the article, ‘What Is the Word According to John?’” I also read what one commenter, Pauline Spearing said which I thought was quite notable:
With respect…
It seems that one of the biggest problems we face with translation is the limitations of English, in relation to Hebrew/Greek…
For instance, “YHWH…”… has so many layers to it… It is an, “Action…” word… not just a name… “I AM… ” (…without a beginning or end… cannot be destroyed… Infinite potential… etc…)
In fact, Jehovah is ineffable… It is impossible to categorise the who and the what of our Heavenly Father… we just don’t have the words… in any language…
So, “The Word…”, feels the same kind of word to me… (no pun intended…)
It is an, “action”, word, describing the One and Only… of all Jehovah’s direct creation… Full of infinite potential, a reflection of His Glory, a mirror to all His attributes… endowed with the task of translating and demonstrating the Love, Joy, Peace, and Light that IS Jehovah God…
He doesn’t, “have”, these attributes, He, “IS”, Love, Joy, Peace and Light…
In my own studies of ancient Hebrew I can now understand why we’re into this discussion. The dynamic quality of this first language is quite absent in Greek and English. Today we speak in abstracts and labels that have no solid meaning to convey to our hearers. A prime example is the swearing in at every courtroom to “tell the truth and nothing but the truth” when in fact the witness only knows a fraction of the truth sworn so that it is really only subjective truth—so that our word “truth” has actually become abstract and open to interpretation.
Original Hebrew was dynamic. What was spoken was what was meant to be heard by us, not interpreted by others. As such, the true meanings of scripture have become to us a dynamic road of potholes in which sincere translators have misguidedly smoothed over with their own abstract interpretations.
Best that we all learn ancient Hebrew—at least enough to “get the sense of it.” (Matthew 13:13-15)

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-10-31 13:46:14

  We must surely find a balance.
  It is not reasonable to think that God requires us all to becomes 21st century Hebrew scholars in order to grasp his Word.
  He is the one that confused the languages at Babel. And yet he writes a book for all humankind. Part of my personal faith rests on the idea that God is not playing games with us, but has written his Word in such a way that it can be accessible to all people. And I believe that Dan 12:4 in particular points to a time when knowledge would be within the grasp of the individual more so than any previous time in history. I believe that this is only possible in the age of the internet.
  That being said I respect the adage that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". There are many pseudo-scholars out there, and it's easy enough for us to purport to know more than we are actually qualified to know just by the power of Google. We must all proceed with caution. I have rightly been corrected myself on this very site when treating internet data in an inappropriate and non-contextual manner.
  But God had his Word written for us. I believe that it is in our grasp to gain a deep understanding of it if we approach it with humility, even though we may be "uneducated, common men" (Acts 5:14, ESV).
  Apollos

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-31 13:49:28

    I concur.

  • Reply by on 2014-10-31 15:08:12

    One of the most difficult things for Christians who seek to understand the Bible is to keep things simple. Jesus taught his disciples in simple terms and they understood but after the early disciples died those who came afterward found it good to write volumes for every word Christ said. No wonder Christianity is in such a muddle.
    Daytona

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-11-01 07:03:32

      I agree with Daytona, most of Jesus illustrations were straight forward in fact. You do not need a study of many year to grasp the meaning. There was a time when the church only used Latin to teach the word, giving the impression the bible was not for the ordinary people.
      It is therefore good to be cautious not to over complicate the things we read in the bible. Even in the JW congregation, I remember many publishers who did not understand most of the explanations of so-called prophecies. By presenting bible topics in a more or less complex manner, the presenters (e.g. GB), elevate themselves and create an image like only they can understand the bible.
      I agree there are things in the bible that can be better understood by studying etc. And that might be beneficial at times. But in the end, the message of the Kingdom is actually very simple: love. Even if one does not understand all the scriptures, that person can still be longing for the Kingdom as it is based on love.

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-11-01 11:36:13

    And I suppose I should not have said "all" as inclusive of everyone. For this I also concur. But for those who wish to fully define Logos in a scholarly way, the structure of ancient Hebrew cannot be ignored......imho

    • Reply by Lawrence L. on 2014-11-03 09:53:29

      Menrov,can you imagine non-J.W. Christians who have led very pious lives,faithfully worshiping God &,maybe even Jesus,displaying true & sincere love for all,caring,etc - in short,living by the two greatest commandments,i.e. to love God.....& neighbor.Then,on Judgment Day,find themselves being the "workers of lawlessness".
      Does it make sense?
      Our God who is graceful & merciful wouldn't expect us to fully understand his scriptures/words,would He?
      Of course,it wouldn't hurt to learn as much as possible.This website,thanks to Meleti,is one fantastic way to do it.

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-11-03 10:29:52

        Hi Lawrence, not sure why you state that because they are non-JW they would not receive eternal life. The opposite. The bible teaches that faith in the Son will lead to eternal life, not your name tag. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment (I am only human :-))
        I agree, it does not make sense at all that only JW's would be saved (just by being a JW labelled person, not because they lead a wrong life as there are probably also many JW (like non-JW's) who fit the criteria to be granted eternal life.)

    • Reply by Lawrence L. on 2014-11-03 20:44:58

      Menrov,what I meant was that the J.W.s are taught that Christians of "Christendom" are not true Christians & they're the "workers of lawlessness" of Matthew chapter 7.They are,therefore,targeted for destruction at Armageddon.Is this what the WTBTS teaches?

      • Reply by menrov on 2014-11-04 04:21:22

        I agree with you :-)

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-01 05:07:09

Its good to see so many comments that acknowledge that the bible is written in words that can be understood by ordinary men and women.When studying with Jehovahs Witnesses I was taught that we can not understand the bible without the aid of the faithful slave.I was on a road that led me in circles.
Over the last few years, I’ve read the bible from a view point that God must of written using familiar and everyday language,so we can grasp at least the fundamentals of truth..Iam not a scholar. Just the average repentant sinner with an average job.
I am beginning to understand the identity of Jesus from the starting point of him being the Word of God.
If God wrote the bible so we humans can relate to it, then maybe the answer is far simpler than I have been taught, maybe its right there in front of me.
For example: If I say I am going to bake some bread, the words come out of my mouth from my inner being(self,I am, me).I will then proceed to mix the ingredients and place them in an oven, after it is baked I have said what I am going to do and I have made bread( likely burnt bread, in my case).The difference between myself and Jehovah as Meleti has mentioned.If God says “let there be light” light comes into existence.
So, therefore Jesus Christ is the Word ( the expression of his I am or inner being)of God and God created all things through his powerful Word.The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst men.
Could it be this simple ? And yet mind bogglingly aw inspiring.
looking forward to the rest of this discussion and to see where it goes.Thanks Meleti for a well written article, very refreshing.

Comment by FutureMan on 2014-11-01 08:34:31

Another word for "Great prince" is "Great Chief or Great Ruler" and so Michael could be said to be a Great ruler over God's people.
The word Prince, denotes a Son of a King who rules over the people in behalf of his father the King.
I believe that Jesus is Michael because the other reference in the book of Daniel 9:25 in the Jerusalem Bible translation refer to the "coming of the anointed Prince", who could only be Jesus from my understanding of things and so this would fit in with the theme of Jesus being Michael the anointed Prince or anointed ruler.
There is also another reference that refer to the Prince of princes in the book of Daniel.
And again in the Jerusalem Bible translation in Daniel 8:25 and (in fact in quite a few Bible Translations) it refers to the Prince of princes that the King of the North will challenge in the time of the end.
From my perspective this could only be talking about Michael the ruler of God's people and of course Jesus.

• Reply by kev c on 2014-11-02 09:32:44

  I can see where you are coming from future man .but the problem in my mind is how do we explain hebrews chapter 1 and 2 . Which of the angels did he say you are my son i today have become your father .and to which of the angels did he subject the inhabited earth to come . Im not saying your wrong im just interested in your comments on those verses. Thanks kev

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-01 15:38:59

Futureman
The bible has a lot to say about Jesus. But,there is no direct teaching in scripture that reveals to us that the identity of Jesus is Michael the archangel.
In the bible teach book, the chapter dealing with Jesus never tells us that Jesus is Michael. Its only mentioned in the appendix.Why?Maybe because the idea is inferred from scripture,only a theory.
The “Word became flesh” is a direct statement of truth, its a solid foundation to begin exploring the identity of Jesus.
If Jesus is Michael, then it can,t be a matter of great importance as there is no clear statement in scripture that alerts us to this.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-02 11:42:16

Hi guys I guess most reading this thread start with the presupposition that Jesus existed before he came to earth.
Why?
Personally as I do more reading I have become less convinced that Jesus had a literal pre-existence, which seems to be the basis of the argument presented here and hinted at, for the ones going forward.
I have a number of reasons why I'm suspect of holding to a view of a pre-incarnate Jesus, given below (but not in order of importance)
Reason 1 - The Targums (like Peter mentioned earlier)
These were the scriptures in Aramaic read out to the people who from their return from Babylon could no longer easily understand Hebrew. In the Targums the Word is not another being along side God, but rather the hyper-personification of God in action - even as Peter mentioned.
However we do not even have to look at the Targums to see this hyper-personification of God's word (actions). Here a couple of examples
Psa 107:20 He proceeded to send his word and heal them And to provide [them] escape out of their pits.
Psa 147:15 He is sending his saying to the earth; With speed his word runs.
Psa 147:18 He sends forth his word and melts them. He causes his wind to blow; The waters trickle.
In each of the above is it reasonable to believe that a pre-incarnate Jesus was literally running to earth,healing people or melting snow? Therefore on what basis do we make a distinction between these scriptures and those that seemingly tie in with our preconceived notions regarding Jesus/Word?
So when we look at these and other verses we must ask ourselves how would a Jewish mind 2000 years ago view the Word and did John bring anything new to the table?
I will take a quote from a book I'm currently reading that touches on this subject. As far as I can tell the author is agnostic with his view of a pre-incarnate Jesus, but he makes this valid point.
"Today we are more aware that a spoken or written word can quickly ASSUME A LIFE OF ITS OWN, as media reports and reviews take it in different directions, often well beyond (and even contradictory to) what the original speaker or writer intended. That is hardly to attribute a semi-independent or hypostatic status to the word itself..... In theological terms, it is the effectiveness of what God has said, that his word acts upon those addressed and brings about what God wills, which explains why the word of God can be spoken of in such terms". End quote (emphasis mine).
So even in our Greek, abstract thinking minds we can still speak of our words as if they are separate or apart from us.
Meleti I have a question that has just come to mind for you when you write your next article. Is there any evidence in scripture or outside of scripture of the Jews accusing Christians of believing in a pre-existent Messiah. Surely such a charge would have been brought against them if the Christian Messiah was radically different to the Jewish Messiah as it would have been easy for the leaders to disregard such a Messiah.
Reason 2 - Philo (a Jew c.20BCE-40 CE heavily influenced by Greek philosophy)
Do we hold the view of a pre-incarnate Jesus as the Logos because of Philo? Philo wrote about a Logos well before John wrote his Gospel. Did Philo manage to second guess God before his revealed time? So strong are the links between Philo's teaching and the Gospels (as well as Paul's writings) that many hold the view that Christians borrowed from Philo.Here are some quotes taken from the 'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosopy'
Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen. He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John (C. H. Dodd) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge). In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo’s The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church Father. END QUOTE
That was the man, what did he teach? (all of the quotes below are un-edited and taken directly from the aforementioned website)
A- Was begotten
The Logos which God begat eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283), is an agent that unites two powers of the transcendent God. Philo relates that in an inspiration his own soul told him:
B - Holds the universe together
In certain places in his writings Philo accepts the Stoic theory of the immanent Logos as the power or Law binding the opposites in the universe and mediating between them, and directing the world. For example, Philo envisions that the world is suspended in a vacuum and asks, how is it that the world does not fall down since it is not held by any solid thing. Philo then gives the answer that the Logos extending himself from the center to its bounds and from its extremities to the center again, runs nature’s course joining and binding fast all its parts.
C - First born of God
The Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God’s thought and therefore it is called the “first-born.” The Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions. The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father:
D - The Angel of the Lord
Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels.
The above is not a complete list of the things Philo thought about the Word/Logos but one cannot help but see the similarities of the pre-incarnate Jesus and those held by JW's. So did Philo beat God to revealing the true identity of Jesus as the Logos or did the church adopt the idea and that we (JWs) have become unwitting carriers of a hybrid Greek/Hebrew philosophy that pre-dated the Gospels by many decades?
When I read Philo and compare the teachings of the Trinity with the idea of a pre-incarnate Jesus then at best I can only describe such ideas as Trinity-Lite whereas the churches of Christendom are 'full fat Trinitarians'. Such are the similarities between the views of JW's and so called Christendom.
Reason 3 - Logical inconsistencies if Jesus did pre-exist?
The following thoughts are not from me. They are in fact from an ex elder who I heard talk on a radio. A visit to the website that hosts his musings is fascinating and well worth looking at.
In one article he wrote, he penned these objections to a pre-exisitent Christ. I would be interested what argument could be presented to refute his conclusions.
Firstly he lists the possible scenarios that could give rise to a pre-incarnate Jesus becoming the human we know as Jesus (as explained by Witnesses and others):
1.The whole spirit person was transferred completely and directly into the womb of
Mary. Or
2. The whole spirit person was changed directly into a human embryo in Mary’s
womb. Or
3. The personality of the spirit person was transferred directly into the human embryo.
Or
4. The life or intangible life-force of the spirit person was transferred directly into the
human embryo
He then tackles each in turn:
#1.
If the whole spirit person had been transferred completely and directly into the womb
of Mary it would create a physical hybrid i.e. part spirit person/part human and is the very Gnostic teaching which early Christianity slaved to keep out of the congregation; yet it reappeared in the form of the later speculations in Trinitarianism whereby a proposed ‘God the Son’ entered Mary’s womb and was born as Jesus - a being who was a God/man. If this concept were applied to Michael the archangel it would result in an angel/man.
#2 If the whole spirit person had been changed completely into a human embryo in
Mary’s womb then a fully human Jesus would be the result. However, such a change would:
 Be a Greek philosophical speculation which has also been used by science fiction writers.
 Break God’s law for there being no crossing of the barriers of the species i.e. everything as
being kept “according to its kind” (Gen. 1:21, 24).
 Preclude any past connection with the previous life regarding character, accumulated knowledge, wisdom, and powers because Jesus would go through the stages from embryo to child etc.
So we must ask: At what point in his life would Jesus have acquired such abilities? However, the Bible provides no hint of any time when he gained these, only that God did miraculous works through him (Acts 2:22, 23; 10:38; John 5:19, 14:10b). In other words Jesus never, at any time, intrinsically had any super powers or abilities. So this proposal would be a pointless exercise and Jehovah may just as well have directly made another Adam from the dust of the ground.
#3 If the life as the personality of the spirit person had been transferred directly into the human embryo, then a hybrid human Jesus would still be the result, because of his having the character, accumulated knowledge, wisdom, and abilities of the super-powerful spirit person.But this concept would mean that:
 Personality is something separate from body? But is one’s body only the external and the personality only the internal part of a person? Such an idea smacks of the pagan Greek concept of the inner person as being a separate soul.
 Such a person would, in some sense, be superhuman and therefore not really a human.
#4 If the life as the intangible life-force of the spirit person had been transferred directly into the human embryo, then, in biblical terms, an impossible scenario arises because life or life-force is impersonal and pervades all of living creation. So there could be no transferral of the intangible life-force of any specific spirit person, which leaves the creation of a Jesus who is fully and purely human with no connection to any past life.
He then goes on to flesh out his arguments presented above and gives compelling reason to pause and think. Follow this link for the complete article and more (
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/1-13.%20PRE-HUMAN%20EXISTENCE%20REALLY%20MEAN.pdf)
Reason 5 - The Trinity teaching had its foundations in a pre-incarnate Logos.
Historically the idea of a pre-incarnate Logos began about 70 years after the gospels were written. Arguments, all Greek in nature featured on whether he was the same substance (homostasis) as God, did he make the universe etc. Finally he was accepted as God's equal, and the discussion concluded with adopting the Holy Spirit as part of the God-head.
So for me, the matter of Jesus' pre-existence is not an axiomatic teaching in the NT. Therefore any discussion we might have on the subject of Jesus' nature/identity can not be meaningful unless the above objections/questions are clearly and logically addressed.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-02 12:25:55

  This topic has been discussed extensively on www.discussthetruth.com under the heading: The Pre-Human Existence of Jesus. You have added a number of new thoughts to the discussion and I would recommend you open a post there as it is more amenable to the give-and-take type of discussion this topic deserves.

• Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-11-02 13:31:24

  I'm just asking,
  Food for thought there, while considering your point quote ;
  The Logos which God begat eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283), is an agent that unites two powers of the transcendent God.
  If I understand you (and please correct me here ) do you mean that Jesus had no pre-existance as an individual being but was simply an extension of God, namely God's word "logos. If that were the case wouldn't the "word be an intangible asset ie. not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal of immaterial things; impalpable - unless of course the word was God himself.
  Having thought about this I'm left with this question.Why would Satan tempt Jesus with all the kingdoms of the world to do an act of worship to him if Jesus was the manifestation of God "the word" in the flesh?
  If jesus were God it would surely be inconceivable that Satan would expect jehovah the all powerful, omnipotent one, creator of everything including Satan himself to bow down before him.
  Now if Jesus (as I believe) is the SON of God then we have an entirely different scenario all together. Jesus was now flesh he had been fasting for 40 days and nights and being human was no doubt in a vulnerable state. Satan took advantage of Jesus vulnerability but failed miserably. Jesus replied, verse 10 it is to Jehovah alone you must worship. Mat 4;8-10
  Does this make sense

• Reply by kev c on 2014-11-02 14:17:18

  Dont know about philo and all that im just asking .i just try to look at my bible and when i read the likes of john 17 v5 and now father glorify me in your prescence with the glory i had with you before the world began .i cant see why jesus did not have a pre human existance .also john 1v1and 2 phillipians 2v6 and7 john 3 v31 john 3 v13 kev

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-11-03 08:41:27

  You say that Christ has an origin because he was born, but I believe he is eternally begotten. He is born outside of time itself, thus he has a beginning but yet exists eternally without start in reference to time as "Alpha" alongside the Father. In the beginning, he already was, and was with God.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-02 17:22:24

Kev C - in line with Meleti's suggestion I won't discuss that scripture here or the others you mentioned. But they do have a simple explanation and take them at face value at your own peril. But as a clue - when did Jesus die as the lamb? Do some thinking, you don't have to know anything about Philo and you will have at least an alternative understanding of John 17 vs 5. The others are also very simple to explain.
Another point, whether you like it or not, if we are to understand those comments of Jesus in a literal sense, then you are left with these choices:
a. Philo was inspired and God used him to reveal the Christ - therefore why did He bother to have John's gospel written?
b. Philo struck lucky with his hybrid version of Greek philosophy and Hebrew mythology and second guessed the Sacred Secret of God - is such a thing possible?
c. The Gospels and comments attributed to Jesus are in fact Platonic teachings.
These are the facts and they can't be swept under the carpet by saying "I'll just read the Gospels at face value" - just because that is the easier than thinking of the alternative or accepting something that goes against our bias. That just won't do and hence why many critics claim that Christianity borrowed from the Greeks.
iloveJesus333
When you read Philo and commentaries regarding his thinking it can be very confusing because his theology is a hybrid of two worlds, the Greek and Hebrew. Plato taught that God has/is THE Logos and we also have our own logos. The Logos is the MIND and it is in the mind where REALITY exists, whereas the flesh is nothing but a prison. So to understand God in the Greek sense, one does so with the mind, as our Logos meets his Logos. The Greek Logos is like the corona of the sun. Not the sun itself, but a glimpse of the essence of the sun - which is the closest men can get to peering at the sun itself, without looking at the heart of the sun itself. Yes all very confusing. Now bring into that heady mix, Hebrew ideas of the Word and the real fun begins.To Philo the Word in the Bible = Gk Logos. There are varying schools of thought as to whether Philo actually believed in a physical logos or whether he viewed the Word of the Bible as hyper-personification of Gods mind. But many believe he held the former view.
Either way, it is quite clear that a lot of the 'Christian' arguments that attribute personality, pre-existence, etc to the Hebrew 'Word' comes from the Greeks. The similarities are to striking and it is for this reason sceptics say John plagiarised Greek philosophy.Of course I don't buy into that, but unwittingly JW's and Christendom in one form or another are advocating ideas put forward by the Greeks. When you examine the arguments Trinitarians put forward for Jesus as part of the Godhead, it is fascinating that they use exactly the same scriptures JW's use to say that Jesus is a pre-existent spirit. The only difference is emphasis. They say he was God, JW's say an Angel and most on this board say 'some other kind of powerful spirit. Either way we are in danger of espousing Greek philosophy.
I think we are two blinkered when considering John 1:1. As I mentioned before, we are so ingrained mentally to think in Greek philosophical ideas we don't even realise it. It is like having bad breath. You don't know you have bad breath, until somebody points it out to you. Consequently without knowing it, we read Jesus' words with a Greek bias that stemmed from the founding of the Church until now.

• Reply by kev c on 2014-11-03 02:24:17

  Sorry im just asking .you seem to be saying those verses are not literal . By the way its not wether i like it or not and i do try my best not to have a biased opinion. Thats why i asked you the question to get your viewpoint. .im trying to have an open mind here .. we dont seem to be on the same wave length here . Kev

• Reply by on 2014-11-03 12:14:14

  Too complicated = human
  John used a term known in his day just because Philo or the Targums used it as well only means they were all using a well known term or name (for Meleti ;) known to many in their day.
  Does the NT make full use of the Targums when quoting the OT? No, I do not believe so...therefore the Targums are not sanctioned in the NT. Does the NT make full use of Philo's writings? No, therefore his writings are not sanctioned in the NT.
  If when Jesus comes he says: why did my disciples not fully download into their hearts my teachings? He would be using a term well known and understood today. So too the Gospel of John.
  For the most part Christ's teachings are simple and straightforward. The least educated of people can understand Christ.
  Simple = God breathed.
  Daytona

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-03 02:32:27

Hi imjustasking
I respect Meleti's wishes to discuss this topic on another forum but I would like just to make one point if I may.
The problem with comparing pagan ideas with biblical doctrine is that you might assume that if an idea promoted by a greek philosopher is similar to a doctrine promoted by a church or christian group, it must be false.
For example, JWs believe that the cross is a pagan symbol.This is correct, but that does not mean that Jesus did not die on a cross.
“The Restoration Fellowship” led by Anthony Buzzard who promote monotheism believe that he died on a cross, but they choose to ignore the crosses pagan roots!
Who is correct?
As you point out.I suspect that not all pagan ideas are false, just lucky guesses.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-03 08:12:23

  On page 185 of New Testament Words by William Barclay, he states:
  "There came a time when the Jews forgot their Hebrew; their language became Aramaic. These translations are called the Targums. Now in the simplicity of the OT human feelings, actions, reactions, thoughts are ascribed to God. The makers of the Targums felt that this was far too human; and in such cases they used a circumlocution for the name of God. They spoke not of God but of the Word, the memra of God. This is the kind of thing that happened. In Ex. 19.17 the Targums say that Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with the memra, the Word of God, instead of, quite simply, with God. In Deut. 9.3 it is God's Word, the memra, which is a consuming fire. In Isa. 48:13 we read, Mine hand hath laid the foundations of the earth; and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. in the Targums this becomes, by my Word, my memra, I have founded the earth, and by my strength I have hung up the heavens. The result of all this was that the Jewish scriptures in their popular form became full of the phrase, The Word, the memra, of God; and the word was always doing things; not merely saying things."
  So we have an instance yet again of translators messing with the message. By adding to God's word they distorted the message he was conveying at that time. They also distanced God from the people by this method. Just as we are wrong to insert Jehovah in the Christian Scriptures where it does not belong, thereby changing the message God intended, the Aramaic translators allowed their discomfort with the idea of a personal God with feelings to cloud their judgment.
  Some might say there is more to it than that. Satan was forever working to distort the message. He, of course, knew firsthand of the relationship between Jehovah and his firstborn. Was he subtly trying to reveal something before its time? Mark tells us that Jesus "expelled many demons, but he would not let the demons speak, because they knew him to be Christ." (Mark 1:32) Allowing the demons to proclaim him as God's son would have undermined God's message.
  We must be careful to never allow pagan philosophies a foothold in our faith.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-03 08:33:07

Not sure if you are replying to my comment but you said“We must be careful to never allow pagan philosophies a foothold in our faith.
I agree, totally.What I am saying is. Just because someone who is not a christian( lets call them a pagan) has an idea, does not mean they are wrong.That would mean we might reject a true teaching just because it just happens to be similar to the ideas of some pagan guy.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-03 10:03:16

  No, not yours, but the idea that Philo and other Greek philosophers should be considered credible when their teachings conflict with God's inspired word.

  • Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-11-03 11:07:53

    2nd Tim 3;16 All scriptures are inspired of God. Now there may be some words changed here and there but the message stays the same. It's hard for me to accept that Jehovah would allow his word to be altered from the ORIGINAL text. There are recent translations including our NWT( which leaves a lot to be desired) where passages have been "doctored" to back up their own doctrines. But the original text I believe would be written just as Jehovah wanted us to read it.
    I'd prefer to have the bible as my foundation rather than mans philosophys.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-03 11:09:20

Don,t know, I have'nt read any of thier ideas.So hopefuly I can't be influenced by them!
But I will take your word for it!

Comment by kev c on 2014-11-03 12:26:38

Not only was the teacher wise but he also imparted knowledge to the people .he pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs .the teacher searched to find just the right words and what he wrote was upright and true . The words of the wise are like goads their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails given by one shepherd .be warned my son of anyrhing in addition to them .Of making many books there is no end and much study wearies the body .

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-03 14:50:54

I think people are missing the point here.
None of us want to hold to man's philosophies - but that is my point. Are the views we hold today about the nature of Christ exactly that - philosophies of men? I'm not for one minute advocating Philo as my teacher but how is it that a hybrid of Greek/Hebrew philosophies resemble so closely the views held by the majority on this board? Is that by accident or design?
We are quick to point out the failings of those who believe in the Trinity, but could we unwittingly be drawing from the same waters as those Trinitarians? Do some research and find out historically what the early Church taught regarding Jesus even in the light of what is now considered as proof texts of Jesus' pre-existence (at least for the first 100 years after his death). Ironically, if we were living circa 1900 and were contempories of Russell you may very well have been arguing from a different position - claiming that Christ had no pre-existence!! So has the 'truth' changed in the last 100 years or have we just been biased to think in a certain way?
Therefore regarding Philo the essential questions remain how he managed to second guess the the sacred Revelation of God about Christ? If John and the other writers were introducing hidden/new truths about Jesus - then how come Philo knew about them before God's due time?
@Meleti the point of the Targums was to illustrate that the 'Word' of God was not seen as a seperate sentient being, but God himself in action. Even as I illustrated in my earlier post that we see glimpses of the hyper-personification even in our Bibles. There is more I can say regarding the Targums in response to your post, but that is for another time.
@ilovejesus333
In answer to your question from your earlier post.
No it is not possible for pagan (read demonic) teachings to reveal God's hidden secrets.
1Co_10:21 YOU cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; YOU cannot be partaking of "the table of Jehovah" and the table of demons.
1Co 1:19 For it is written: "I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside."
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.
1Co 1:22 For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom;
In answer to your second question about God's word (the Bible) I would have to agree and disagree with you.
Yes the basic truths about salvation have not been tampered with and they are simple enough for anybody to grasp. But there are other forces at work which seek to pervert this truth. How you may ask?
Well first of all wicked men were predicted to do just that by Paul
2Ti 4:3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled;
2Ti 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.
We have experienced that ourselves and that is why we are here on this forum. Thankfully Meleti and Apollos have worked tirelessly to expose the twisting of scriptures and we are grateful for their efforts to free our minds. But you try telling what we learn here to the brothers in the Kingdom Hall. So God allows errors to exist and even flourish. We just have to be careful that we don't get caught up in our own biases without first looking at all the arguments and being honest, even if those arguments go against what WE WANT to believe.
Also consider this scripture
Rev 22:18 "I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;
Although in the strict sense it is talking just about the book of Revelation what does this scripture suggest? That his Word could be tampered with. And it has or at the very least translator bias will affect how a portion of scripture is translated.
There is an excellent book I've read that addresses this very question called 'Truth in Translation' by Jason BeDuhn. Look him up, he is a very well respected professor and takes a neutral stance. He takes about 10 Bible translations (including the NWT) and lines them up at key passages like John 1:1 and goes through the Greek line by line in each translation. In each case he shows how bias has effected the translation from the original Greek. As it happens the NWT comes out very well against the most popular versions (NIV, ASV, KJ, NAB etc..).
So God's original Word is pure, but the lack of integrity by those who have taken it upon themselves to translate the Bible affects the end product we have in our hand. And if we are not aware of the ploy of translation bias we will say 'the Bible says so and so' when in fact it may not any such thing. So we end up perpetuating myth, lie and falsehood. Still our brother Jesus can work through all that, provided we have an open ear, when he speaks.
This will be my last post on this topic, because I don't want to steal Meleti's thunder and I have a lot of secular studying to do, which I mustn't be distracted from. However I will add that I've enjoyed this discussion, let us all remain united in peace (even if we don't see eye to eye) as I'm sure one day we will all see clearly....
1Co 13:12 For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known.

• Reply by kev c on 2014-11-05 15:06:14

  This is my last post on the subject as well if the bible has not been translated accurately .the same could be true of any other ancient writings as well .these targums for instance . .i believe its the workings of gods holy spirit that teaches people the truth . Acts 2 v17 john 14 v26

  • Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-11-07 20:37:29

    And that's it in a nutshell kev, Yes there have been alterations in the bible's NWT's (and no doubt even earlier ones) .How even a comma inserted in the wrong place could make such a difference to the evildoer who died with Jesus and future bible doctrines. Even a vowel, God or "a" god. So what really is the truth. Certainly not a religion who tamper with the word of God in order to promote their own teachings. But God's message is still the same.
    I firmly believe truth is simply this - LOVE and accepting that loving provision of Jesus sacrafice which now allows us to enter into that loving relationship with our creator which Adam lost for us. Remember the two GREATEST commandments. Jehovah can see into our hearts, and like you said, he will then give us his spirit to grow in the truth once we love Jehovah and our neighbor. In fact Jesus said "love your neighbor AS I HAVE LOVED YOU."
    I'm beginning to believe this site, Beroean Pickets has enabled me to understand the scriptures a lot more clearly.

Comment by Logos – Part 3: The Only-Begotten God | Beroean Pickets on 2014-11-19 17:46:29

[…] Word of God” as a title rather than the name it is. (Re 19:13) [iii] The NET Bible [iv] From a comment by Anderestimme: “Here’s an excerpt from the forward to William Dembski’s book “Being as […]