• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

"The Word Became Flesh"

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.


Runningman is embarrassing himself in denying the obvious.
Philippians 2:6 isn't about the Word. The topic is how Meyer doesn't believe the Word is literally God. That's what this thread is about. I am holding the high ground here, yet @Arial invited me here to this thread. Seems this thread has been a blunder for all of the proponents of the word being a literal person.

See comment #3 where I debunked the OP.
 
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."
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:Who doesn't understand what they are reading? Who claims to have at one time been and English teacher and sees that as saying Meyer's is calling the Logos an "it"? He is saying that if the first Logos of John 1:2 is the same Logos of John:3. which it is of necessity, then the "Logos is no other than He, who Himself was God who lived in the beginning in fellowship with God---"

He is not calling the Logos an it. The "it" connects the two Logos as being one and the same God. They are the same Logos.
 
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."
See post #63.
 
Philippians 2:6 isn't about the Word. The topic is how Meyer doesn't believe the Word is literally God. That's what this thread is about. I am holding the high ground here, yet @Arial invited me here to this thread. Seems this thread has been a blunder for all of the proponents of the word being a literal person.
For one who is not familiar with Greek, which I am not, and I am guessing you are not, his commentary is hard to follow and keep track of when he is referring to what he considers an alien interpretation, and when he is putting forth what he considers correct and which he supports, both with the language within the culture---historic. It has caused you to apparently simply pick our words and apply what you consider his use of a word, to his belief. Not making distinctions between his and that of others. To focus on the word "it" in one sentence, misapply its use, and say this is what Meyer believed would put any English department to shame.

And the topic is not really about Meyer but about John 1. You brought Meyer into the conversation and now made it necessary to prove what you have said about him is false. WHich is being done and done soundly with quotes from Meyer, not from speculation or ignorant ways of going about sticking to one's mistakes.
See comment #3 where I debunked the OP.
Why is it that whatever you say you consider automatically debunking what someone else has said? You in no way debunked the OP---you did not even address it. You simply stated your view and supported it with nothing.
 
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.
Yes, they need three to make room for the legion of female gods . His and hers gods.
 
You in no way debunked the OP---you did not even address it. You simply stated your view and supported it with nothing.
He addresses what you have been dismissing.

It is your way of debating not addressing what is important in gospel messages.
 
What is often used as a defense against the Trinity is the oft repeated in Scripture, "God is one."

There is a historical application in gathering the meaning of that true declaration. The tradition Christian believes in a triune God doctrine, and this historical element is not necessary to do so, or to defend it. The Reformed method of Bible interpretation, however, is literal/historical. This means that the Bible is translated according to the type of literature that it is. Narrative as narrative, symbolic as symbolic, wisdom as wisdom, prophetic as prophetic and so on. That is the "literal" meaning in the method. The historic takes into account cultural concerns and historic events surrounding the text. In addition, the Reformed interprets through the framework of covenant relationship. The historic aspect is a boon to defending against the God is one argument.

And by Reformed I do not only mean Reformed theology, or reformed Calvinism, but the method used by the reformers.

I could go all the way back to the creation story to lay this foundation, but for the sake of space, I will move it forward to Moses and the Exodus, which was God bringing to fruition a portion of the covenant promise God made with Abraham to give the land of Canaan to his descendents.

Israel had been in bondage to Egypt for over four hundred years. There were no nations at that time that God had taken as His covenant people, and all nations, including Egypt, worshiped a plethora of gods. This is what the Hebrews had been steeped in and were familiar with. There was a sun god and a moon god, a storm god, a fertility god----a god for everything and anything. The interesting thing about these gods is that they were fashioned out of wood and did nothing. They were not alive. They could not walk or talk, they were without any power.

To shorten the story, when God visited the plagues on Egypt He was coming first and foremost against their impotent, lifeless gods. He showed Himself as the only God, the living God, the God who is sovereign over all creation and is the Creator. He judged their gods and those who worshiped them.

In the Exodus, God drove home to His people who He is. He revealed Himself as provider, defender, guide and judge, as merciful and compassionate, as love. As living and powerful and sovereign. As covenant command He declared, "You will have no other gods before me. You will not make idols or images to worship.You will trust and worship only Me. The Lord your God is One God.

It had nothing to do with whether or not He is a triune being.

The fact that He is triune casts its shadow in the OT. It is in the pillar of fire, and the pillar of cloud. It is in the rock from which water flowed, and in the manna that came down from heaven. It is in the Exodus itself. It is in the sacrifices and in the prophecy. The Spirit and His actions are spoken of directly in the OT. But this shadow did not come into the full light of revelation until the Son came as Jesus, one of us, to bear our sins and bring us into His kingdom. And Jesus and later the apostles, in passage after passage, take us straight back to these shadows and cast the light on them, quoting from them. "I am what this is the shadow of," Jesus proclaims in His teaching. "This, this, is what the Christ accomplished! What He has done for us!" the writers of the NT proclaim.

"The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone. For to us a child is born to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Is 9:1-2,6)
 
What is often used as a defense against the Trinity is the oft repeated in Scripture, "God is one."
Trin's "God is one" is not what the Bible says.

They mean God is triune.

That's why it is so deceptive.
 
Trin's "God is one" is not what the Bible says.

They mean God is triune.

That's why it is so deceptive.
How is this deceptive?

trinity.jpg
 
Trin's "God is one" is not what the Bible says.

They mean God is triune.

That's why it is so deceptive.
What matters is what God says. If you can prove I am wrong about what I said, then do so. If you can't there is no purpose in making any comment on it. And just so you know---your word does not count as the word of God. Any comments that are accusatory and fail to address what you are denying, even though it is safe to assume you did not even read it, will just be deleted. I am not going to let this thread be made into a circus.
 
He addresses what you have been dismissing.

It is your way of debating not addressing what is important in gospel messages.
Grace2 you never, ever address anything anyone says so you do not even know what addressing something is. You are in no position to say that someone else addressed something. He did not. Now just stop it. I'm serious. This is not a circus thread.
 
Last edited:
Meyer further discusses the Word from John 1 in Philippians 2 which totally destroys your false belief.
Philippians isn't about the "Word" we are discussing. Quoting a different context unrelated to what we are talking about destroys nothing. Meyer obviously doesn't believe the "Word" is God or Jesus even if does believe Jesus is God in a theological sense.
 
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:Who doesn't understand what they are reading? Who claims to have at one time been and English teacher and sees that as saying Meyer's is calling the Logos an "it"? He is saying that if the first Logos of John 1:2 is the same Logos of John:3. which it is of necessity, then the "Logos is no other than He, who Himself was God who lived in the beginning in fellowship with God---"

He is not calling the Logos an it. The "it" connects the two Logos as being one and the same God. They are the same Logos.
So when I quote directly from his commentary with him calling the the Word an it it's just I have no idea what I am talking about and I'm being dishonest? LoL ok. Yet when people who deny what Meyer explicitly said in multiples verses in his commentary then they are the correct ones? Me thinks you are just going to reject anything that doesn't validate what you believe.
 
And the topic is not really about Meyer but about John 1.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through hm, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Okay let's go back to the OP then. Why is the light called an it in John 1:5?
 
The Spirit is the Father

Two working as one .The dynamic dual .Three is a crowd
So, it was the Father who was hovering over the surface of the waters? Yeah, that'll preach.
 
So, it was the Father who was hovering over the surface of the waters? Yeah, that'll preach.
Yes, one Spirit the Father's Holy Spirit as Christ. it worked in the Son of man Jesus just as with us today.
 
So when I quote directly from his commentary with him calling the the Word an it it's just I have no idea what I am talking about and I'm being dishonest? LoL ok. Yet when people who deny what Meyer explicitly said in multiples verses in his commentary then they are the correct ones? Me thinks you are just going to reject anything that doesn't validate what you believe.
He didn't call the Word an "it". That is what has been shown to you. It is you who rejects what is right before their eyes because it doesn't validate what you believe.It is foolishness and ought to embarrass you. Perhaps it is like my sister when she was three. When it was her turn to hide during hide and seek, she would go someplace in the open and cover her eyes, thinking if she couldn't see us, we couldn't see her.
 
He didn't call the Word an "it". That is what has been shown to you. It is you who rejects what is right before their eyes because it doesn't validate what you believe.It is foolishness and ought to embarrass you. Perhaps it is like my sister when she was three. When it was her turn to hide during hide and seek, she would go someplace in the open and cover her eyes, thinking if she couldn't see us, we couldn't see her.
It sounds interesting but would you show us how he rebutted your quote?

Show the exact verse you are talking about?
 
Back
Top