basicallyblues wrote:

>
> Does being "divine" or godlike mean that Jesus Christ is himself
> almighty and coeternal with God the Father?
>
In the context, without doubt.  That John drew from Gen 1:1
necessitates such a correspondence.  That he later further draws the
distinction in v 14, obviates that he is being apologetical in nature,
arguing against the gnostic heresies which had grown at the time of
this Gospels writing.  That all the earlier manuscripts read, "only
begotten God" in v 18 also adds depth to the already growing crescendo
of John's introduction.  That he identifies Logos as the Pillar of
Glory of Ex 34 in v 14 is without question.  BTW, that would be YHVH to
you.

> homoousios
>
> Where, though, in the Scriptures does one encounter such reasoning?

Right back at Jn 1:1c.  It caps John's poetic flow.  First he declares
that the Logos was prior to the beginning of all created things by use
of the imperfect in 1:1a and in 1:2.  This identifies Him as YHVH the
Creator.  But then in 1:1b, John uses a preposition to distinguish His
person.  In 1:1c he ties it all together in declaring that though YHVH
Creator and yet distinct from YHVH (relation among equals), He shares
the same essence as YHVH.  And this is exactly what the OT teaches when
it makes statements like, "YHVH and His Redeemer, YHVH of Hosts."  The
first YHVH is the Father, while the YHVH of Hosts is the Logos.  "YHVH
Tzidkenu" of Jere 23:6 is a direct reference to Jesus.  Jesus Himself
refers to Jere 23:5  when declaring, "I AM the True Vine." (cp Ex
15:25; Zech 6:12)  To Jere 23:3 when declaring, "I AM the Good
Shepherd."    Paul, in Rom 3:22, 26 applies Jere 23:6 to Christ.

> The answer is simple: Nowhere.
>
Your quest for certainty has replaced your quest for Truth.  Too bad.
>
> >"through" as in "agent."  This is in perfect
keeping with John's use
> of
> >"logos."  "No man has seen God at anytime."
>
> The Bible is filled with countless examples of personages- Chrsit-
> angels- men- speaking as God's agent- thus for all intensive purposes
> they were "God speaking" and even were addressed as God but that does
> not make them part of a ludicrous trinity.
>
And what of the Angel of Jehovah.  It too is a Christophany.  Yet He is
called YHVH, yet distinquished from YHVH Father.  How do you marry
that?

> >Also, the offices of the Trinity reflect personhood.  The Father
> "will", the Son's "wisdom" and the Spirits
"(e)motion."
>
> unBiblical human philosophy- and sophistry. God (YHWH) and Jesus have
a
> separate "wills" thus they cannot be part of a trinity. (see Luke
> 22:42)

I guess you've never read either Heb 10 or Ps 40 which it is quoting
and in relation to.
>
> >There is absolutely NO
> > hint at any polytheism or pagan trinity here.
>
> >Couldn't agree with you more because Trinitarianism was completely
> >unknown to man and therefore never existed until Christ revealed it
> >after His incarnation.
>
> let me correct that for you (i'll assume your lie was unintentional)
>
> Couldn't agree with you more because Trinitarianism was completely
> unknown to man and therefore never existed until Satan created it
well
> after Jesus' ascension
>
And where is your "proof positive?"  Where is your later NT passages
which are declaring this a heresy?  Quite the contrary.  Christ
receives worship while seated at the right hand of the Father (a symbol
of equality) in Rev 5.

But you are willfully blind.  Arianism was long ago defeated.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 12:57:06 PM ---