The De-Mystified Logos -- John 1 as it was meant to be read

Written by Phil Maxwell


Continued from page 1

Nevertheless,repparttar majority of Christians earnestly believe what theologians and translators commonly contend John meant in his prologue – thatrepparttar 126875 logos or word literally representsrepparttar 126876 person of God, and that He literally became flesh asrepparttar 126877 man Yahshua. They accept this and all its difficult implications as a great mystery that goes beyond human comprehension, unwittingly parroting a circular argument based on text already skewed withrepparttar 126878 bias ofrepparttar 126879 point they argue. They rest easy inrepparttar 126880 apparent security lent byrepparttar 126881 popularity and antiquity of their doctrinal views, never realizing howrepparttar 126882 plethora of evidence supporting their views all traces back to a common root: The decrees of post-apostolic consortiums founded onrepparttar 126883 absurd assumption thatrepparttar 126884 Scriptures didn’t adequately answerrepparttar 126885 question Yahshua posed to His disciples, “Who do you say I am?” We wouldn’t considerrepparttar 126886 overwhelming display of support for a political issue at a rally forrepparttar 126887 same cause to prove its worthiness. Yet, that is essentially whatrepparttar 126888 monopoly of power established byrepparttar 126889 marriage betweenrepparttar 126890 ancient Catholic Church andrepparttar 126891 Roman Empire in 325 A.D. has rendered Christianity to be inrepparttar 126892 world for nearly 1700 years – a rally for doctrines developed by men bearing no apostolic credentials. The reason most Christians blindly agree that Yahshua is more thanrepparttar 126893 Son of God is becauserepparttar 126894 voices of dissent have been squashed like fans forrepparttar 126895 visiting team at a homecoming game.

…It is notable thatrepparttar 126896 very same power and authority that established ‘orthodox Christology’ also worked long, hard, and violently to keeprepparttar 126897 Scriptures and all dissenting voices away fromrepparttar 126898 general population. Beforerepparttar 126899 advent ofrepparttar 126900 printing press andrepparttar 126901 Protestant Reformation, an earnest seeker ofrepparttar 126902 truth would have been hard pressed to find a straight answer torepparttar 126903 question of who Yahshua was and is outsiderepparttar 126904 papal system. If that is hard to relate to, perhaps it would help to consider thatrepparttar 126905 theocratic Roman Catholic Empire was not that much unlike Muslim regimes such as modern Saudi Arabia orrepparttar 126906 Taliban in Afghanistan: Religious dissent was a serious crime, fully enforced byrepparttar 126907 power ofrepparttar 126908 government.

…Key to what follows isrepparttar 126909 word 'logos', both its generic definition andrepparttar 126910 various concepts it represented as THE logos inrepparttar 126911 minds of John's contemporaries. Of particular concern will be whether or notrepparttar 126912 personification ofrepparttar 126913 logos in John 1 was intended as an abstraction or to indicate a literal distinct person. To this end, I will show thatrepparttar 126914 concept embodied inrepparttar 126915 logos was commonly personified in literature –repparttar 126916 Scriptures, Hebrew, and Philosophers – but not withrepparttar 126917 thought of it being a literal person, much lessrepparttar 126918 Messiah. Either John was endeavoring to communicate in a rational, coherent way that would be understood by those who spokerepparttar 126919 language he wrote in, or he was deliberately trying to be vague and confusing by using a previously unknown definition ofrepparttar 126920 word ‘logos’. I believe he was trying to communicate high spiritual concepts in ordinary, understandable language, but I don't think he was trying to say what many think.

When we read, “the Word was God…andrepparttar 126921 Word became flesh,” we naturally draw certain conclusions based upon what we already believe and how this reads. IFrepparttar 126922 translators accurately translatedrepparttar 126923 text, and IF we understand their words as John's contemporaries would have understood his words, we'd be fine in this. However, beingrepparttar 126924 imperfect tools for communicating thoughts that words are, we must at least considerrepparttar 126925 possibility that something may have gone amiss between John’s pen, modern translations, and our minds. Even words passed directly betweenrepparttar 126926 closest of people often require further explanation, so this is quite reasonable. What IFrepparttar 126927 translations are somewhat lacking? What IF there were some implications related to cultural elements of that time that are not evident inrepparttar 126928 text itself? Discerning what WE conclude about English renderings of John 1 is easy, but discovering what THEY were meant to understand from John's Greek text is quite another, especially inrepparttar 126929 case of this passage. One thing is for sure,repparttar 126930 true meaning of what John wrote is not what we or anyone else thinks, but what was actually intended atrepparttar 126931 time it was written. On this point, Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary comments:

[In order to interpretrepparttar 126932 Bible correctly] We must first discover whatrepparttar 126933 passage meant inrepparttar 126934 day and age ofrepparttar 126935 author. …[This is important because]repparttar 126936 Bible was not actually written directly to us, and it makes sense to put ourselves inrepparttar 126937 shoes ofrepparttar 126938 original audience if we are to understand its message properly.1

My primary contention is thatrepparttar 126939 Greek word ‘logos’ represented a thing and not a person to John andrepparttar 126940 Greek-speaking population of that day in general, much likerepparttar 126941 term ‘word’ is to English speaking people of this day. For instance, we might say ‘a man is his word’, but no one would take this as meaning that a man’s word is literally that man, even thoughrepparttar 126942 statement might literally mean that. Although I make no pretense regarding my own bias, this contention is specifically againstrepparttar 126943 typical arguments raised from John 1 in support ofrepparttar 126944 deity of Christ doctrine, notrepparttar 126945 doctrine itself. Whether or notrepparttar 126946 deity of Christ doctrine is true, John wrote ‘logos’, not ‘Christ’, and meant it according torepparttar 126947 common usage ofrepparttar 126948 word in his time, not ours.

I will offer evidence by way of numerous points that will follow, documented by sources that generally incorporate a bias against my own conclusions. Several of these pertain to translation ambiguities, others relate torepparttar 126949 implications ofrepparttar 126950 word ‘logos’ with regard to religion and philosophy of John's day, and then more showrepparttar 126951 precedent and likelihood thatrepparttar 126952 personification ofrepparttar 126953 logos in John 1 was meant as a poetical abstraction, not literally. Inrepparttar 126954 end, ifrepparttar 126955 word of God –repparttar 126956 logos – did not meanrepparttar 126957 literal person of God, then reading “the word was God…andrepparttar 126958 word became flesh” as a statement meaning thatrepparttar 126959 unchangeable God (who is distinctly not a man) actually became a man is untenable.

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; (Nu 23:19)

For I, Yahweh, do not change; (Mal 3:6)


For full text of article, notes, references, copyright info, and downloadable/printable MS Word version, click De-Mystified Logos.

Phil is VP/Gen Mgr and part owner of Metro Industries, a Marine veteran, and founder of Simple Truth Ministries and ScatteredSheep.com. Phil and his beloved wife, Brenda, and their three children and new grandson all live in KC, Missouri, area.


Forgetting the Past

Written by Pastor Ray Stark


Continued from page 1

The humility ofrepparttar apostle is tempered by his exuberance. He puts aside all else to attain his goal of knowing Christ. Some look at verse 13 and think this means forgettingrepparttar 126874 baggage ofrepparttar 126875 past. Laying aside broken dreams, unfulfilled desires, andrepparttar 126876 failures of life. Nothing is farther from Paul's thought.

Earlier inrepparttar 126877 chapter he delineatesrepparttar 126878 things he has left behind. His spotless heritage as a Jew, his devotion torepparttar 126879 law, his righteousness under it. All things he had been proud of. When he met Christ he saw all his past pride of life and success as garbage and laid it aside. It was not worthy of being compared torepparttar 126880 risen Savior he met onrepparttar 126881 road to Damascus.

He became totally focused on His relationship withrepparttar 126882 living Christ and states in verse 15 that every mature believer will feelrepparttar 126883 same way, and that if we have not yet had that revelation, our continued fellowship with Christ will draw our mind torepparttar 126884 same conclusion as Paul. Namely, thatrepparttar 126885 most important thing on this earth is our personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It carries rewards both in this life and inrepparttar 126886 one to come.

http://www.celebratingjesus.org



49 years of life, 30 years of marriage, 22 years pastoral and missionary, 20 years as a father, two strokes and a heart attack. Hopefully I have learned something out of all that which will be a blessing to you.


    <Back to Page 1
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use