Matthew Johnson wrote:

>
> And that is a good hint that _despite_ what has prevailed in Western
theological
> circles since the Germans of the 19th century, perhaps we should
_not_ assume
> that John got this sense of 'Word' from the Greeks; perhaps he got it
from the
> Aramaic 'memra' in the inter-testamental writings, as Khrapovitsky
suggested in
> the 19th century.
>
Certainly there is that aspect to be considered, but there is another
which is better.  The Hebrew, "Dabar" as used in 1 Sam 3:21.  This term
*always* refered to deity in the mystery religions of  area.  Of all
the disciples, John appears to have been the only one who had a
"graduate" level rabbinical training.  I place
"graduate" in quotes for
a reason.  Only when one learns the rabbinical training paradigm can he
come to understand much of the relationship between the disciples and
Jesus, their rabbi.  I believe John was the only disciple who was
invited to continue his religious training beyond the age 12.  That the
disciples were in their mid to late teens (except for Peter) this
leaves enough time for John to wash out of his "graduate" level
rabbincial training, having returned to the family business.  I feel
this plays a certain part in why the emphasis of John's gospel is so
different than the other 3.

> > yet that stated, they were certainly acquainted with the term.
>
> I have yet to understand _why_ people are so certain of this...
>
Because there was no tv at the time.  People talked.  People discussed.
This is evidenced by the crowds that followed Jesus, that sought Him
out in the temple to learn what it was He was teaching.  The "logos"
concept, though many perhaps did not actively inquire after the
philosophical meaning, would have heard it discussed or used, whether
in the market place or in the temple area, the market place of idea's.

>
> >I would like to briefly summarize four reasons that James Boice
gives
> >as to why it matters that Jesus Christ is, indeed, God.
>
> But why would we care what reasons this Boice gives?

For the same reasons you quote the fathers.  It is a reference.  It
adds to the mix the profit from other theologians labors.  I thought it
interesting and I wanted to give credit where it was due.
>
> > Eph. 3:18, 19
>
> Now perhaps this is still unclear to some. But how could we be "filed
up to all
> the fulness of God" unless Christ _is_ God? And for that matter, how
could we be
> so filled up unless the Holy Spirit is _also_ God?
>
> So this is why the heirs to the Apostles have repeated clearly
throughout the
> centuries: unless Christ is both fully God and fully Man, then all
that He did,
> even the Cross and Resurrection, have no power to save us, and do not
even
> _concern_ us. THAT is why it is so important that we understand that
Christ is
> God.
>
Specifically, it is important because "In Him was life and the life was
the light of men." (vs 4)  "I am the light of the world" (8:12) is a
most important concept (esp when considering the context of Jn 8)  Here
is the "Light of Israel" (Isa 10:17) come in the flesh.  As the Logos
is the Personal exhibition of the Godhead, it is through Him that
revelation is extended (Dan 2:20ff) as was it was through the Logos the
physical world came into existence.  It is important because only God
can reveal God.  Even men, when they give witness to Christ, are but
vessels through which the Spirit empowers the Word of God into the
hearts of those who believe.  Jesus is the market place where we come
to know God.  He is the Grand Central Station of the universe.

((( 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.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/10/05 8:09:34 PM