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

Written by Phil Maxwell


The following has been excerpted fromrepparttar original, which is available atrepparttar 126875 link below

...John 1 andrepparttar 126876 word ‘logos’ has long been one ofrepparttar 126877 most hotly debated passages ofrepparttar 126878 Bible, which also relates torepparttar 126879 currency most theologians grant it as a supposed proof text for supposed essential doctrines likerepparttar 126880 deity of Christ, trinitarianism, and related tenets. For this reason alone,repparttar 126881 passage is arguably of dubious value as a basic doctrinal proof text, which is my first point. It simply doesn’t make sense to feature such a controversial passage as a primary proof text for fundamental tenets of doctrine. …There are plenty of Bible passages regardingrepparttar 126882 nature, identity, and origins of Yahshuarepparttar 126883 Messiah, and His relationship to Godrepparttar 126884 Father that are much more clear and concise than this. Nevertheless, reasonable or not, since John’s Prologue is so commonly employed as a litmus test for defining who is a true Christian,repparttar 126885 need to investigate its true meaning is far more than tangent theological aerobics.

A reasonable approach to interpreting Scriptural precepts is outlined in Isaiah 28 and echoed in many other passages throughout Scripture:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned fromrepparttar 126886 milk, and drawn fromrepparttar 126887 breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Is 28:9-10 KJV)

Like any branch of knowledge,repparttar 126888 spiritual truths of Scripture follow a natural order. For example, we wouldn’t attempt to teach algebra to those who haven’t learned basic math, and, likewise, if an algebra problem were to yield answers that defied underlying precepts (like 2x3=5), then it would not be accepted as true. Similarly, we shouldn’t attempt to interpretrepparttar 126889 implication ofrepparttar 126890 nature and identity of Christ in John’s Prologue outsiderepparttar 126891 numerous Scriptural precepts that naturally precede it, and neither should we accept any interpretation that contradictsrepparttar 126892 same. Otherwise,repparttar 126893 product of our interpretation ends up being is what theologians call eisegesis, which is when someone reads their own bias into a passage rather than drawingrepparttar 126894 true meaning out ofrepparttar 126895 text itself, which is called exegesis. As I will show, this is what is commonly done with regard torepparttar 126896 Prologue.

If there is any consensus amongst scholars regarding John 1, it is that by and largerepparttar 126897 English translations simply don’t conveyrepparttar 126898 full implications of John’s original intent, particularly with regard torepparttar 126899 Greek word ‘logos’, which is commonly translated ‘word’. Yet, many shamelessly assert major doctrinal points fromrepparttar 126900 English text as though it accurately representsrepparttar 126901 original thought, even though it is well known that it doesn’t. These seek to renderrepparttar 126902 passage into a simple unequivocal statement ofrepparttar 126903 deity and incarnation of Christ, typically arguing that since “the word was God” (v. 1) and “the word became flesh” (v. 14), then God becamerepparttar 126904 man Yahshuarepparttar 126905 Messiah (Jesus Christ), who is, therefore, God. This bias has been incorporated into most ofrepparttar 126906 popular English translations and paraphrases, some going so far as to misrepresent ‘logos’ as ‘Christ’ or ‘the Son’ even thoughrepparttar 126907 original Greek text says nothing ofrepparttar 126908 sort. Then, building on this shaky foundation, generally follows many explanations of how this human being,repparttar 126909 Son of God, is also God. Because of these things, notrepparttar 126910 original thought represented by John’s words, this verse has become a virtual cornerstone of so-called ‘orthodox Christology’. Having encountered many apologists for these doctrines overrepparttar 126911 years, I have found no other passage more highly regarded as a supposed proof text for these misguided conclusions regardingrepparttar 126912 nature and identity ofrepparttar 126913 one true God and His Son, Yahshua. Obviously, my own bias is contrary to ‘orthodox Christology’, butrepparttar 126914 point here is neither my opponents’ bias nor mine, but what John truly meant inrepparttar 126915 prologue of his gospel.

Considerably elevatingrepparttar 126916 importance of carefully scrutinizing this passage isrepparttar 126917 accompanying belief that affirmation ofrepparttar 126918 deity of Christ isrepparttar 126919 primary defining element between true Christianity and cults. Inrepparttar 126920 past, dissenters have been silenced by whatever force was necessary – seizure of property, banishment, imprisonment, torture, and execution. In modern times, they are held to be anti-Christ heretics who are stigmatized, vilified, and ostracized byrepparttar 126921 most vocal proponents of ‘orthodox Christianity’, whilerepparttar 126922 overwhelming majority ofrepparttar 126923 two billion or so professing Christians ofrepparttar 126924 world quietly acquiesce to their teachings; same spirit, different season.

Whilerepparttar 126925 Scriptures repeatedly uphold belief inrepparttar 126926 true identity of Yahshua asrepparttar 126927 step one must take to truly enterrepparttar 126928 ranks of Christianity,repparttar 126929 one they were to confess allegiance to was “the Christ,repparttar 126930 Son ofrepparttar 126931 living God” (Mt 16:16) – NOT ‘Godrepparttar 126932 Son,repparttar 126933 Second Person ofrepparttar 126934 Triune God’ or any such thing! The revelation ofrepparttar 126935 Lord Yahshua’s true identity as preached byrepparttar 126936 apostles was always straightforward, simple, and comprehendible by evenrepparttar 126937 most simple minded would-be disciple. It was to berepparttar 126938 foundation upon which Yahshua would build His Church, opposition byrepparttar 126939 gates of hell notwithstanding. Yet,repparttar 126940 concept of Christ not only alleged to be set forth inrepparttar 126941 prologue of John’s gospel, but also held to be essential elements ofrepparttar 126942 Christian faith are also held to be a great mystery that transcends human comprehension. …True faith is found in believing and holding fast to provable truths that are learned precept upon precept,repparttar 126943 most basic of which is that Yahshua is “the Christ,repparttar 126944 Son of God”. Neither Scripture norrepparttar 126945 apostles require any further confession.

Thus, we are left with a passage that has been grossly misrepresented standing as a cornerstone of doctrines held so important as to justify both dividing uprepparttar 126946 body of Christ and doing violence against dissenters. The true identity of Christ as preached byrepparttar 126947 apostles and revealed in Scripture is not so mysterious or incomprehensible that new and would-be believers can’t see it clearly for themselves. There is no need to rely upon a controversial passage to establish who “the Christ,repparttar 126948 Son ofrepparttar 126949 living God” is unlessrepparttar 126950 aim is to otherwise represent Him, which is exactly what orthodox theologians have done with John 1. The Bible tells us to “prove all things; hold fast that which is true” (1 Th 5:21 KJV), andrepparttar 126951 application of that precept could be no more important than it is with regard to whorepparttar 126952 Lord and Savior truly is. Again, John’s Prologue raises so many issues that scholars can't agree upon, it is hardly well suited forrepparttar 126953 purpose of proving any major doctrinal point, much less such a supposedly basic and important tenet ofrepparttar 126954 Christian faith that must be understood and affirmed by even new and non-believers as a condition of being received by others inrepparttar 126955 family of God.

Forgetting the Past

Written by Pastor Ray Stark


Forgetting What is Past

Phillipians 3:10 - 15 Weymouth N.T.

Phi 3:10 I long to know Christ andrepparttar power which is in His resurrection, and to share in His sufferings and die even as He died; 3:11 inrepparttar 126874 hope that I may attain torepparttar 126875 resurrection from amongrepparttar 126876 dead. 3:12 I do not say that I have already wonrepparttar 126877 race or have already reached perfection. But I am pressing on, striving to lay hold ofrepparttar 126878 prize for which also Christ has laid hold of me. 3:13 Brethren, I do not imagine that I have yet laid hold of it. But this one thing I do--forgetting everything which is past and stretching forward to what lies in front of me, 3:14 with my eyes fixed onrepparttar 126879 goal I push on to securerepparttar 126880 prize of God's heavenward call in Christ Jesus. 3:15 Therefore let all of us who are mature believers cherish these thoughts; and if in any respect you think differently, that also God will make clear to you.

We are called to a total identification with Christ. To a close personal knowledge of Him. To a life which embracesrepparttar 126881 spiritual power flowing out from His resurrection and a partnership in His sufferings and death.

Paul makes it clear that he does not consider himself to be some great avatar who has arrived at a place of spiritual knowledge beyond that which is common to man but states that his goal is to keep pressing intorepparttar 126882 things of God until he attainsrepparttar 126883 prize Christ has offered. It is sobering to realize that a man of Paul's spiritual stature, one who heard and saw things inrepparttar 126884 third heaven which were unlawful to utter, should say, "Brethren, I have not yet arrived."

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use