"The Word Became Flesh"

[Fred]

That isn't calling the Logos God.

it was this same Logos, and no other than He, who Himself was God,

 

[Runningman]

Here's Meyer on John 1:15:

The meaning of the sentence and the point of the expression depend upon this,—namely, that Christ in His human manifestation appeared after John, but yet, as the pre-mundane Logos, preceded him, because He existed before John.

John 1 Meyer's NT Commentary

So much for the Logos being an "it."

Did you actually read John 1:5? That verse calls the light an it. The "word" is the light of life because it's an thing as I keep telling you. Words and life aren't a person. This is all being personified as I have been telling you and as Meyer plainly believes based on his admission in John 1:1.

John 1
5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

[Runningman]

it was this same Logos, and no other than He, who Himself was God,

I am afraid you are not understanding what you are reading. Meyer keeps calling the logos a thing, an it, not a person.

"In John 1:2 is given the necessary premiss to John 1:3; for if it was this same Logos, and no other than He, who Himself was God, who lived in the beginning in fellowship with God, and consequently when creation began, the whole creation, nothing excepted, must have come into existence through Him. Thus it is assumed, as a self-evident middle term, that God created the world not immediately, but, according to Genesis 1, through the medium of the Word."

The Logos = an it

He who is Himself God = the Father

lived in the beginning in fellowship with God = the Logos and the Father

This is all poetry, personification.

 

[Arial]

Unfortunately for Trinitarianism, that isn't the case. He keeps pressing the narrative about the Word being a thing through which God created with in his commentary of John 1:2.

"Thus it is assumed, as a self-evident middle term, that God created the world not immediately, but, according to Genesis 1, through the medium of the Word."

He did. You can't stop there and when you are reading Meyer's actual commentary you have to pay close attention to when he is stating other views and his views. He deal with both in great detail with scripture, and you also have to be able to comprehend what he is saying. I am not going to argue with you about it any more. Pay close attention when he gives John's view, which is the important one. He say much of what I have already said, even before I read his writing.

And even if he disagreed with the Trinitarian view----which he doesn't---it would be immaterial. It would not make him right. Since I wrote the OP, and other Trinitarians are posting let's go with that and not someone who died in the 1800's.

 

[Arial]

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/john/1.htm

Or clicking the actual link @Fred gave will take you to the same thing on a different website. What is your point?

 

[Fred]

The Logos = an it

Meyer affirmed otherwise in reference to Jesus.

You are floundering big time.

 

[Fred]

Did you actually read John 1:5?

I quoted from John 1:15, not from John 1:5.

 

[Arial]

Read post !10 and refuted it. Read post #11.

You did not refute post #10.

Refute: to prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or PROOF. You simply repeated your position which I refuted in post #11.And Meyer's commentary of John 1 itself soundly refutes your assertion about what his position is. You treated his commentary the same way you treat the Bible. That doesn't work here. We won't let you get away with it.

 

[Arial]

Runningman is being really dishonest with this.

What else can he do? It is all he has.

 

[Fred]

What else can he do? It is all he has.

Sad, but true.

 

[Arial]

That isn't calling the Logos God. The premise for John 1:2 is already that the Logos is a thing, an it. He's quoting from John 1:2 what it says about the Word, but Meyer's commentary is that the Word isn't God. It's thing through which God created with.

What sort of spirit is it that is shown words directly quoted from their source,

Meyer on John 1:2:
for if it was this same Logos, and no other than He, who Himself was God, who lived in the beginning in fellowship with God, and consequently when creation began, the whole creation, nothing excepted, must have come into existence through Him.

and still says that no Meyers already said the word is a thing so he thinks the word is a thing. And Meyer did not say the word is a "thing" that is your personal editing.

Are you falling into the net you laid for others?

 

[Mr GLee]

That isn't calling the Logos God. The premise for John 1:2 is already that the Logos is a thing, an it. He's quoting from John 1:2 what it says about the Word, but Meyer's commentary is that the Word isn't God. It's thing through which God created with.

Read Genesis 1 where God created with words and that YHWH created alone in Isaiah 44:24. God wasn't with someone in the beginning named the word. The Word is a thing being personified as Meyer said.

Isaiah 44
24Thus says the LORD,
your Redeemer who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by Myself spread out the earth,

Exactly if God is not a man. Why try and make him into one.?

That's is the goal of the father of lies. Make God into a Jewish man as King of kings

The law of Christ's faith. . "Let there be flesh" and the word of God produced.

 

[Mr GLee]

Stick to the OP please.

Thanks I was trying to .

The use of the word "it" in both verses do not become a person (Peter) "it" represents the gospel the power of the word coming from God Same with the Word was God. The word comes from the person as thoughts of a person. His thoughts are not ours. Just like the word it with Peter . You could say in both cases they both . . . represent the gospel, the power of faith.

Mathew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The living word that works in the creature was fully from God . God is eternal Spirit. He speaks words of eternal life. The flesh he uses to make himself known profits for zero

My version. .

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, (let there be) and the Word was from God, the living Word revealed by God our invisible head .

I think part of the problem is in the idea of a second coming of the Son of man, Jesus our brother in the lord. His body returns to dust as any dying creation, As sons of God the bride of Christ what we will be is not shown . We do know neither male nor female Jew nor gentile but a new creation . No reincarnation of old .

John 6:63-68 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Not the dying flesh of eternal life rather than words coming from God .

 

[Runningman]

You did not refute post #10.

Refute: to prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or PROOF. You simply repeated your position which I refuted in post #11.And Meyer's commentary of John 1 itself soundly refutes your assertion about what his position is. You treated his commentary the same way you treat the Bible. That doesn't work here. We won't let you get away with it.

In Meyer’s commentary on John 1:2 he called the Logos an it again. He doesn’t believe the Word is God.

 

[Runningman]

What else can he do? It is all he has.

Your debate opponents being dishonest would be a convenient scapegoat but as you can see, I keep referring to the support I need.

 

[Runningman]

Meyer affirmed otherwise in reference to Jesus.

You are floundering big time.

Meyer is a a Trinitarian but he didn’t conflate the Word with Jesus like others do. His commentary proves it.

Speaking of floundering, you’re just being dishonest.

 

[Runningman]

Exactly if God is not a man. Why try and make him into one.?

That's is the goal of the father of lies. Make God into a Jewish man as King of kings

The law of Christ's faith. . "Let there be flesh" and the word of God produced.

Well, they require God be a man in Trinitarian theology. Ask them why Mary is the "mother of the Lord" in Luke 1:43 some day. You'll get a mixed bag of answers, but after enough time they'll probably have to say Mary is the mother of God in order to preserve the Trinity.

 

[Arial]

Meyer is a a Trinitarian but he didn’t conflate the Word with Jesus like others do. His commentary proves it.

Speaking of floundering, you’re just being dishonest.

That idea of a revelation by God of His own essence, which took its rise from Genesis 1, which lived and grew under various forms and names among the Hebrews and later Jews, but was moulded in a peculiar fashion by the Alexandrine philosophy, was adopted by John for the purpose of setting forth the abstract divinity of the Son,—thus bringing to light the reality which lies at the foundation of the Logos idea. Hence, according to John,[69] by ὁ λόγος, which is throughout viewed by him (as is clear from the entire Prologue down to John 1:18)[70] under the conception of a personal[71] subsistence, we must understand nothing else than the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God (comp. Paul, Colossians 1:15 ff.), but for the accomplishment of the act of creation proceeding hypostatically from Him, and ever after operating even in the spiritual world as a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle, equal to God Himself in nature and glory (comp. Paul, Php 2:6); which divine self-revelation appeared bodily in the man Jesus, and accomplished, the work of the redemption of the world. John fashions and determines his Gospel from beginning to end with this highest christological idea in his eye; this it is which constitutes the distinctive character of its doctrine.

 

[Fred]

Meyer on Philippians 2:6:

ὅς] epexegetical; subject of what follows; consequently Christ Jesus, but in the pre-human state, in which He, the Son of God and therefore according to the Johannine expression as the λόγος ἄσαρκος, was with God.

Philippians 2 Meyer's NT Commentary

Runningman is embarrassing himself in denying the obvious.

 

[Runningman]

That idea of a revelation by God of His own essence, which took its rise from Genesis 1, which lived and grew under various forms and names among the Hebrews and later Jews, but was moulded in a peculiar fashion by the Alexandrine philosophy, was adopted by John for the purpose of setting forth the abstract divinity of the Son,—thus bringing to light the reality which lies at the foundation of the Logos idea. Hence, according to John,[69] by ὁ λόγος, which is throughout viewed by him (as is clear from the entire Prologue down to John 1:18)[70] under the conception of a personal[71] subsistence, we must understand nothing else than the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God (comp. Paul, Colossians 1:15 ff.), but for the accomplishment of the act of creation proceeding hypostatically from Him, and ever after operating even in the spiritual world as a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle, equal to God Himself in nature and glory (comp. Paul, Php 2:6); which divine self-revelation appeared bodily in the man Jesus, and accomplished, the work of the redemption of the world. John fashions and determines his Gospel from beginning to end with this highest christological idea in his eye; this it is which constitutes the distinctive character of its doctrine.

Meyer's commentary on John 1:2 he called the Word an it again. I know it would be convenient if I was somehow wrong about my representation of Meyer, but I am not. He does believe Jesus is God, but not that the Word is literally God. His commentary isn't a commentary on what he believes all of the miscellaneous heresies are, though he does speak about some sometimes, but rather his commentary is about his exegesis of the Bible.

"In John 1:2 is given the necessary premiss to John 1:3; for if it was this same Logos, and no other than He, who Himself was God, who lived in the beginning in fellowship with God, and consequently when creation began, the whole creation, nothing excepted, must have come into existence through Him. Thus it is assumed, as a self-evident middle term, that God created the world not immediately, but, according to Genesis 1, through the medium of the Word."