jinnsnow: Out of curiosity, how many people have actually read the entire Bible? I have numerous Christian friends whom have barely scratched the surface of the Bible. Do you believe reading the full Bible is necessary to be a true Christian?
Daniel: I have read the whole thing. Having read the whole thing is not a requirement for salvation.
SublimeCommunique: i That wasn't the question.
Daniel: Yes, it was. "True Christian" means someone who is saved.
SublimeCommunique: No it doesn't.
Daniel: "True Christian" is redundant. If you are saved, you are a Christian. Otherwise, you aren't. And you don't need to read the whole Bible, or any of it for that matter, in order to be saved.
SublimeCommunique: Define "saved" then.
Daniel: Someone is saved if they believe the Word of God. Someone is elect if they were chosen from the foundation of the world to be saved until the end. Someone who is saved but not elect is someone who really believes the Word of God for a time, but who was not chosen for glory and ultimately falls away and gets destroyed in the lake of fire.
SublimeCommunique: That's a lot of jargon I'm not familiar with. Can you try again without the presumption that I know what all that means?
Daniel:
- Saved : a believer in the Word of God.
- Word of God : God. Scripture. The Bible. Christ.
- Elect : someone chosen from the foundation of the world to inherit eternal life.
- Foundation of the world :
beforethe earth was created. ii- The end : when you die on earth, or when the rapture happens.
- Lake of fire : the real place where hell and death and all unbelievers are sent to be destroyed forever and ever. iii
- Falls away : stops believing.
flp_ndrox:
Word of God : God. Scripture. The Bible. Christ.Bible = Christ ?!?
Daniel: Yes.
flp_ndrox: Wow. An admission of Bibliolatry and a swipe at my religion. Not at all what I expected. It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'im.
Daniel: It's not idolatry if it's true, which it is. My position is supported by Scripture. You say I'm wrong? Prove it with Scripture.
flp_ndrox: On the one hand, where does Scripture say it has to be proved with Scripture? That is a 500 year old innovation. The idea a book is God requires way more proof than the written word can provide.
On the other, you do you. You want to worship a book as God? Heck, me and most of the people on this sub think a first century Jewish Carpenter is God. Who am I? You do you...Daniel: 2 Timothy 3:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Matthew 4:
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
flp_ndrox: When Paul was writing to Timothy the only scripture he knew was the Septuagint...which you reject swaths of. iv
Matthew is quoting Christ paraphrasing Deuteronomy 8:3.He therefore let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna, a food unknown to you and your ancestors, so you might know that it is not by bread alone that people live, but by all that comes forth from the mouth of the LORD.
Which to me seems more like Israel's survival is dependent on the love and care of God than anything about Scripture that was just beginning to be written at that point...and a much better comeback to Satan's lame temptation.
As for John 1, if you choose to view that as a hymn to the Bible and not to Jesus specifically there is literally nothing anyone but you can do to change your mind.
Not that I asked or anything.
Daniel: Paul (having been a practicing Jew at the time) was presumably aware of the Hebrew Scripture from which the LXX was translated.
What does it mean, "you shall live by every word of God" when the context is living by bread? Without the Word of God, there is no life. (John 6:33 v)
Indeed Christ is the Word of God. Christ is Scripture. Scripture was slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8 vi) Scripture is the Son of God.
SublimeCommunique: Yeah, I ain't touching that. I'm out. You're a braver [forum goer] than I.
ManitouWakinyan: You're mistaking two different Greek words. Rhema is not logos.
Edit: vii Ah, literally a cultist. Weird, dark, world I followed into.
Daniel: From our own translation of Scripture:
The “word” (logov, logos) in the book of John is identified as God (John 1:1), as coming in the flesh (i.e. Jesus, John 1:14), and used for the “word” (logw, logô) which Jesus had spoken (John 2:22; 4:41, 50; 5:24), as the “saying” that is true (John 4:37), as the “word” the Samaritan woman spoke (logon, logon, John 3:39), etc.. Moreover, logov (logos) and rhma (hrêma) are synonyms. They are clearly used synonymously in Luke 20:20 (logou, NKJV “words” [Greek is singular]) and verse 26 (rhmatov, NKJV “words” [Greek is singular]); synonymously in John 10:19 (touv logouv, NKJV “these sayings”) and 10:21 (tauta ta rhmata, NKJV “these . . . words”); synonymously in John 12:47 (rhmatwn “words”) and 12:48 (rhmata “words, and logov “word”); synonymously in John 15:3 (logon “word”) and 15:7 (rhmata “words”); synonymously in John 17:6 (logon, “word”), and 17:8 (rhmata “words”); synonymously in Acts 2:14 (rhmata “words”) and 2:22 (logouv “words”); synonymously in Acts 10:36 (logon “word”) and 10:37 (rhma); synonymously in Acts 10:44 (rhmata “words;” logon “word”); synonymously in Hebrews 12:19 (rhmatwn “words;” logon “word”); and synonymously in 1 Peter 1:23 (logou “word” of God) and 1:25 (rhma “word” of the Lord). In Luke 22:61 the critical text has rhmatov (hramatos) for the “word” of the Lord, but the Majority Text (M) and Received Text (TR) has logou (logou).
Also, rhma is used for the “word(s) of God” in Matthew 4:4; Luke 3:2; 4:4 (M/TR); John 3:34 (verbal); 8:47 (verbal); Acts 11:16 (verbal); Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 6:5; 11:3 (verbal), like logov is used for the “word(s) of God” in Luke 5:1 (verbal); 8:11 (verbal), 21 (verbal); 11:28 (verbal); Acts 4:31 (verbal); etc.. Also, logov is used for the written word of God in Mark 7:13; John 8:55 (at least includes the written word); 10:35; 17:17 (at least includes); Romans 9:6 (includes); 1 Timothy 4:4 (includes); Hebrews 4:12 (includes); Revelation 17:17 (includes).
Also, in its translation of “the Ten Commandments” the LXX bears witness to both logov and rhma being synonymous terms and that they are terms used for both the spoken and written word of God. Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 10:4 have “touv deka logouv” (tous deka logous), i.e. “the Ten Words” (or “Sayings”). Deuteronomy 4:13 has “ta deka rhmata” (ta deka hrêmata) i.e. “the Ten Words” (or “Sayings”). This LXX rendering of the “Ten Commandments” fits well with the Hebrew word for the “Ten Commandments,” µyrib;D]h' tr,c,[} (`aseret haddevâriym), “the ten words” (or “things”). The word of God (o logov tou yeou) and the Scripture (h grafh) are synonymous (John 10:35). John 1:1 reveals that Scripture (the word) was in the beginning. This is elsewhere supported by Psalm 40:7; 139:16 (“in your book”); Isaiah 46:9-10; Revelation 17:8.
ManitouWakinyan: To reduce logos to merely a synonym of rhema massively understates the spiritual and philosophical importance of the word. The reader will note at no point do you indicate that rhema is used in such a celestial sense. In other words, logos may have a broad enough meaning to capture rhema, but rhema does not have an equivalent semantic scope.
I'm also frankly unsure as to why I should trust the translation of "Darwin fish." I'm unsurprised a source you wrote agrees with what you're saying. That's not enough to offer credibility to your claim.
Daniel: What does it matter who wrote it? Is it true or is it not? Where in Scripture are you getting this notion of "celestial senses?" As I have shown from our footnote on John 1:1, the Greek word translated to "Word" in English is the same Greek word used in other places. For example, John 2:22 where it's used to indicate something Christ said. Indeed Christ is the Word, and yet "the Word" is something Christ said. It's the same.. word.
ManitouWakinyan: It matters who wrote it because you're citing it to add credibility to your argument. If I don't believe your claim is true, which I don't, citing yourself is not going to be any more persuasive.
I've already agreed that Logos can be translated as "word." It has a mundane meaning. What I'm not convinced of is the idea that rhema and logos have perfect semantic overlap - that is, that they share all the same meanings.
I'm afraid you misread my line about "celestial sense." I'm not talking about "celestial senses," as in taste, touch, etc. I'm using the word "sense" as in "kind." To rephrase, I'm saying that your own examples dont include any indication that rhema can be used to mean something celestial, or divine.
So logos can mean "word," as in words on a page. It also has a deeper spiritual and supernatural and philosophical meaning.
Rhema can mean "word" as in on a page. It can not also refer to all the supernatural meanings that logos has. The words have different semantic ranges.
Daniel:
So logos can mean "word," as in words on a page. It also has a deeper spiritual and supernatural and philosophical meaning.
Where is this found in Scripture?
ManitouWakinyan: Logos is a word that existed before it was used in scripture. Scripture isn't a dictionary - it doesn't list out a meaning for every word it uses. But if you were first reading John 1:1 as a Chinese speaker, for instance, "logos" wouldn't be translated as having anything to do with the word "word." You'd see Tao there instead.
Remember, the core issue here is whether logos and rhema always mean the same thing. They don't. Rhema just means word. But look in any Greek dictionary, and you'll find logos can also mean wisdom or reason, and was used by the Greeks prior to its use in John 1 to refer to the controlling force in the universe.
Daniel: The core issue is that Scripture is God. This is not conditional on whether logos should better be translated "the way." In Matthew 4:4, as you have pointed out, a different word is used; one that we both agree should be translated as "word." In this verse, it is made clear that the literal words that God speaks are what give life. Scripture is a collection of words that God spoke. Therefor, Scripture is what gives life, and so following Scripture is God.
ManitouWakinyan: Your whole case is built on rhema and logos being the same word.
I certainly agree that the words of God are life giving. It does not follow that are then God. Rather, they are the means by which God gives life and communicates truth.
Daniel: That isn't my "whole case" nor is it even something I claimed. To call two words synonymous is not to say they are the same word. It is to say they have similar meaning.
1 Corinthians 15:
45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
If something gives life, it is God. Life does not come from non-God sources.
John 14:
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
God is life. You cannot have life without God. If something gives life, that thing itself is God. Since you agree His words are life-giving, you must agree that His words themselves are in fact Him.
Hebrews 12:
27 Now this, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Things that are "made" are things that are "shaken." This means they can be destroyed.
Isaiah 40:
8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”
God's word cannot be destroyed. Therefor it was not created. Therefor it is God.
ManitouWakinyan: Well, it is something you claimed. We can see that at multiple points above. And your initial post was made on the basis that all those examples where rhema was used referred to the same concept as the ones where logos was used.
But let's look at the rest of your points -
Your quote from 1 Corinthians does not say that life does not come from non-God sources. However, I'm comfortable saying that life ultimately comes from God. This passage is of course talking about Jesus - Jesus is the latter Adam, and gives life as Adam gave death.
The second quote is Jesus saying he is the way, the truth, and the life. I agree with that. It says nothing about the words of God, and your syllogism doesn't follow. God can be the ultimate source of life, with his words being the means by which he gives life (though we don't see that in this passage - we see that Jesus gives life, hut he doesn't describe the means). Those words do not have to be God. God is the ultimate source of life, the words are the means, the words are not God.
In a similar way, God brought back a dead child to life through Paul. This does not make Paul God, but only an instrument of God.
Creation can be destroyed, yes.
The word of God does stand forever. This does not mean it is a thing that can be destroyed. Words arent things - Hebrews is clearly referring to the created, physical, world. If we were to apply your logic between these two passages, we'd have to conclude that Christians are God - after all, our souls will not be destroyed, but will love forever (along with our glorified bodies) in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Created, but not destroyed, and not God.
This broken logic and pastiched proof texting is all over the site you pointed me too. I don't blame you for it - but it does seem like you've adopted the style of the false teacher you're following. It sounds good at first blush- but even Satan comes as an angel of life. I'd encourage you to step away from that ministry. Its leading you down a dark path.
Daniel:
The second quote is Jesus saying he is the way, the truth, and the life. I agree with that. It says nothing about the words of God, and your syllogism doesn't follow.
That which gives life is God. Matthew 4:4 says "every word" is what gives life.
God brought back a dead child to life through Paul. This does not make Paul God
Scripture doesn't say that Paul gives life.
The word of God does stand forever. This does not mean it is a thing that can be destroyed.
Is this a typo? I didn't claim the Word can be destroyed.
we'd have to conclude that Christians are God
The saints inherit eternal life through God.
ManitouWakinyan:
That which gives life is God. Matthew 4:4 says "every word" is what gives life.
You haven't actually established this through scripture. Like I've said, I'm fully on board the ultimate source of life being God. We agree there. Where we disagree is that the means of God providing life are also life.
Scripture doesn't say that Paul gives life.
It tells us he brought a boy back to life. Life was given to the boy by God, through Paul.
Is this a typo? I didn't claim the Word can be destroyed.
Let me clarify: the scriptures tell us that created things are destroyed. The scriptures tell us the Word of God will never be destroyed. You then conclude that the words are God.
The logic fails in two places:
- Not all created things are actually destroyed - Elijah and Enoch were both created beings, but were not destroyed.
- The words of God are not created "things." Hebrews is referring to the physical, tangible, world which is passing away. But the words of God - the Bible - are intangible thoughts, ideas, and expressions made tangible by the act of being spoken at a specific point in time, often in reaction to specific events. They are, in other words, created thoughts given lasting permanence by being recorded, remembered, and retold.
The saints inherit eternal life through God.
Yes. They are created beings who will not be destroyed, thanks to God.
Daniel:
You haven't actually established this through scripture.
You said this in reply to me literally quoting Scripture.
It tells us he brought a boy back to life. Life was given to the boy by God, through Paul.
God told Moses to speak to a Rock in order to make water flow out of it. Moses instead hit the Rock and water came out. Who made the water come out?
The words of God are not created
Indeed. They are from everlasting.
ManitouWakinyan: You quoted scripture, but the point you made in your commentary wasn't reflected in the scripture you mentioned.
You seem to be agreeing with me that the means that God uses to do things only God can do are not God in and of themselves, so I think were done here.
- Identifies as "Methodist." ^
Darwin: Actually, it is WHEN the earth was created (e.g. Luke 11:50). There is "BEFORE the foundation of the world" (John 17:24).
Darwin: Technically, "Hades and Death" (Revelation 20:14). Hades is the present hell sinners are put into (e.g. Luke 16:19-31).
Darwin: Paul spoke Hebrew (e.g. Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). He was "brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law" (Acts 22:3). He was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee" (Philippians 3:5). There is nothing in Scripture that says he only had the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint).
- John 6:
33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
- Revelation 13:
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
- Frustratingly, many forums and chat rooms allow users to edit their comments, even after other users have replied to them. Not an issue in this case, but it could make the reply look stupid. ^
[...] I misspoke. The elect were chosen at the time of creation; not before. [...]