You are hereGod's Word and the Preterist View

God's Word and the Preterist View

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By dada21 - Posted on 21 January 2008

A search on Planet Preterist for "God's Word" brings up only 1 hit. A search for "Word of God" brings up none. A Google search on planetpreterist.com for "God's Word" brings up only 4 hits. It's odd that a phrase so readily used, especially in Dispensationalist congregations, is missing from the Preterist conversation.I'm a "Full" Preterist, yet I serve literally hundreds of Futurist churches with my not-for-profit design and print ministry. I also attend, and serve, at a formerly Baptist congregation that still retains many of its Baptist roots, including a Futurist/Dispensationalist eschatological perspective. Anyone with other perspectives are kindly told not to bring them up.

One of the most commonly used phrases by the pastors of my congregation is "God's Word" or "Word of God." Every time they say it, they'll hold up the Book of Scriptures, a.k.a. the Bible. This past Sunday was no different, with the pastor speaking of how his daughter was "in the Word" when she was reading her Bible.

Many Preterists I know also use the term "the Word" when they speak of the Bible: "We should see what the Word says about (so and so)." A casual search online for investigating what most Preterists believe is the Word of God brings up mostly conversations referencing the Scriptures.

Yet my personal investigations into the Word of God, before I stumbled across the Preterist thought (I became a Preterist before ever hearing of it, and a Dispensationalist Pastor told me that I was likely a Preterist), led me to a different view of what, or actually Who, the Word is.

The purpose of this article was to actually drive people, Preterist or otherwise, to discuss what they believe the Word is.

Virgil's picture

A search on Planet Preterist for "God's Word" brings up only 1 hit.

Hmm. That's weird because I get thousands of results both here and with Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,940 from planetpreterist.com for "God's Word". (0.23 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,330 from planetpreterist.com for "Word of God". (0.22 seconds)

To me it sounds like this is a swipe at Planet Preterist, not an effort to drive people to discuss what they believe "the Word" to be. Perhaps you can clarify your goals with some additional comments?

dada21's picture

Bizarre. I'm thinking the problem may be that I use Google Mobile (most of my web browsing is from my mobile PDA phone, not from a desktop). Could be the problem.

It's definitely NOT a swipe at Planet Preterist by any means (I visit daily, actually). I'm just trying to get a "more honest" view of how Preterists (although I know there are some Dispies here, too!) view the phrase "God's Word."

Faith is a step by step process, regardless of how one wants to view the step of the actual acceptance of a particular faith. Preterism also is a step by step process. The problem with some of the steps is that, often times, we are discouraged because of what we accept as truth, because of our previous relationships with people who have advocated a certain faith or way of thinking within that faith.

One of the discouragements to Christianity that I have seen from outside the faith is those who are adamant at Scripture being the Truth. For those who are not Christians, this can be a real block to moving forward. As someone who loves to share the story of God, I'll often-times start discussions with non-Christians who are curious about my views on faith. Yet more often than not, the same "halting block" will surface: "If the Bible is truth, why are there so many versions of it?"

So I dug deeper into the sola scriptura and the "Bible is infallible." I scoured literally hundreds of websites -- Christian and not, Futurist and Preterist. For me, PlanetPreterist is one of the kindest sites to visit because those with alternative views within this eschatological perspective tend to be a bit less aggressive than those within the Futurist sphere.

My research path came to the "Bible is infallible" thoughts time and again, but few offered their opinion on how they reached that goal. Yet time and again, when I've spoken with Christians (Preterist, Futurists, whatever), they'll quote Scripture to prove that the Bible is infallible. Their quotes of Scripture pertain to, guess what? The Word of God, or God's Word.

Because I feel that many (this is solely my opinion and not meant to sway or intrude) may be confused about the Word of God (again, versus my opinion), I wanted to see an opinion poll on what God's Word is.

If the majority of Preterists feel that God's Word is the Bible, then it makes a lot of sense why the "Bible is infallible" curiosity is so strong even in a movement that is still considered outside the mainstream.

Again, I am a Preterist. I am comforted in my views (short of just a few places in Revelation that I am still not concrete about). I find a lot of comfort "doing church" on this website because the information is better than any sermon I'll hear anywhere for the given year. Yet so much of one's faith sits on "the Bible is infallible" in many cases, when it seems to me that the Word is infallible, which may not be saying the same thing.

Comprende?

Virgil's picture

I actually agree with you, especially with your assessment that "faith is a step by step process."

The comforting thing for me is to know that the scripture is an immovable foundation for our faith, so the problem is not with the scripture but with our perception of it. Whether or not we believe that it is or it is not God's word, it will always have the same message. The words will not change on the paper and the message of the Scripture will always remain the same.

Unfortunately folks will always find the excuse to interpret it however they find it convenient.

Also, I think differentiating between "the Bible" and "the Word" as you have done is appropriate. I would venture to say that what we call "the Bible" today is not infallible, and it is the duty of each Christian to research the original and ancient languages, cultures and societies in order to discern the intended message. Leaving it to a group of translators is not the way to go, and we have seen what poor translations can lead to: dispensationalism, etc. In this same context I would say that "the Word" is infallible. God has always communicated truth to his creation; it is immutable, unchanging, without end. To claim that He failed to do so would be the height of arrogance.

Starlight's picture

The “Word” is covenantal in scope is MHO.
Since my introduction to Preterism about 2 years ago I have actually been strengthened in the reliability of scripture. The reliability that I perceive is not the same as some who look at the scriptures in a literal mode. In fact if I was inclined to a literal interpretation of scripture it would be more difficult to have the reverence and awe of the “word” that I now have. I also look at other writings outside the accepted canon of today and find validation for the word and its truth. I believe when one is properly trained in recognizing the harmony of the “word” they develop the eyes to see and discern what is truth. I believe some full Preterist today could perform a better job of setting the canon than the Catholics did with some of their acquired biases that had already crept into the church. The problem is that Tradition is such an overwhelming power in the body of believers that mindlessly accepting what others have stated as truths has become the norm. I make that statement fully recognizing the complexity of the issue and acknowledge that a generalization cannot do justice to that discussion.

When one locks in on the full Preterist perspective they begin to recognize that Revelation is not some offbeat off shoot of standard scriptural genera. In fact it provides the keys to begin understanding longsuffering difficult scriptures within the NT and OT alike especially having strong implications for the proper understanding of Genesis and other prophetic literature. The mysteries become recognizable and as I have mentioned many times on this site the students of the word should think long and hard about the implications of Matt 13 where Christ discusses having eyes to see concerning his use of parables. Having eyes to see is taken for granted by Christians today but do they really comprehend that Christ is saying that parables and messages require a blessed recipient to fully grasp the message that appears hidden. Otherwise you end up reading like the legalistic Pharisees or nationalistic Sadducees or a combination which puts one all over the board.

An in-depth study of the different genera and their structures can also strengthen one’s appreciation for the word. A study of the complexity of the Torah and especially Genesis reveals that the structure is down to the usage of words and the layout and structure of the stories but it goes even deeper than that. Even the use of the two designations for God in Genesis and beyond has strong implications for the contextual message within. As an example the term “Elohim” is an all inclusive term for God and the term YWHW is more of a personal God of the Hebrews designation. It is important to recognize these two usages become paramount in Genesis Chp 1 and Chp 2 where their usage implies certain attributes to the story. Genesis 1 uses Elohim while Gen 2:4 introduces YWHW which makes complete sense as you recognize that the story has now moved to Adam who is the first Father of Israel. The story of Gen 1 is an introductory prologue which provides a prophetic outline overview for the upcoming story of humanity culminating with the Sabbath Rest (Christ finished Works) and so we are to take our cues from subtle issues like that which typically go over our head because our translators don’t take those points into consideration. As we read the rest of Genesis we find these rules concerning words consistent and follow these patterns throughout. You begin to recognize that you can depend upon the reliability of scripture and that those who wrote the rest of the scriptures understood these basic underling principles and never deviate as far as the main theme is concerned. These main themes and metaphors remain constant from their introduction supposedly by Moses around 1500 BC until the culmination in AD70. Paul, Peter, James, John and all the other writers and some outside the canon don’t seem to miss a beat in properly recognizing these constants. That is why full Preterism continually validates scriptures from one author to the next.

The “word” is indeed marvelous in spirit and in word.

Blessings

Norm

DavidF's picture

dada21

“Yet so much of one's faith sits on "the Bible is infallible" in many cases, when it seems to me that the Word is infallible, which may not be saying the same thing.”

I think infallibility can be applied to both the Bible and the Word depending on the individual. The Word is God Himself written on the heart of the Christian. The Bible is God’s word written on paper - it can be heard through preaching - or it can be read. Salvation occurs only with a combination of the two, that is, the Word and the word. “…no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of …the Spirit.” JO 3:5 “…faith comes from hearing the message…” RO 10:17

Sam Frost sums it up nicely: “…discernment within the Christian heart (a synonym for conscience in Paul) is quite subjective, but operates within an objective parameter (the Bible). Christian decision making is both subjective and objective.” From The suneidesis in Paul’s Romerbrief. Part I

The Bible means nothing to one’s faith if the Almighty does not dwell within. The Bible is infallible only to the “man of God”, that is, the man who the triune Deity dwells in. To the “man of God” all Scripture is “God-breathed”. The “man of God” is “thoroughly equipped”. All others are given a “spirit of stupor” RO 11:7. Both the Bible and the Word are meaningless to the non-believer.

“…you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim. 3:15-17

DavidF

"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money."
- Daniel Webster

plymouthrock's picture

"I find a lot of comfort "doing church" on this website because the information is better than any sermon I'll hear anywhere for the given year."

Hear,hear!

plymouthrock!

Ransom's picture

I chafe at the use of "Word of God" in reference to the Bible. The presuppositions and ill-formed bibliology behind it really bugs me.

Virgil's picture

Well and that is why I differentiated between the Bible and the Word. I think it is an error to equate the two or elevate them at the same level. It is unfortunate that not more Christians see those differences.

dada21's picture

You and I both. And since I attend a Baptist/Dispensationalist congregation (my family does, and I join them most Sundays and help with A/V), I hear it every week. Argh!

I've gotten the beat-down there for talking Preterist stuff after service, so I keep quiet, and the organization does a LOT of good things for the non-faith community outside its walls, but I see so many people who want to do good for the world, and instead spend most of their time fear-mongering and setting rules for others who don't even have the same beliefs.

Ransom's picture

I commiserate! Except my church doesn't do "a lot of good things for the non-faith community outside its walls". I'm tied down because I'm involved with the music, my family attends there, and there's nowhere (to my knowledge) in the area better to go!

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Stephen,

Have you ever thought about starting something from scratch?

That is what we did here. We had investigated a few congregations for awhile, but realized that none were workable options for us, particularly considering we had families with kids growing up.

Our beginnings were modest. It was a home-church type of thing-gy for awhile, but we grew too large for that (mostly with the kids) after a few years. I just wondered if you've ever thought in that direction. It's a lot of work, but we have found taking the initiative really paid off in our community.

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Kent's picture

Joh 1:1 In1722 the beginning746 was2258 the3588 Word,3056 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 with4314 God,2316 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 God.2316

The numbers beside the words are the Greek numbers.

WORD

G3056
λόγος
logos
Thayer Definition:
1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
1b) what someone has said
1b1) a word
1b2) the sayings of God
1b3) decree, mandate or order
1b4) of the moral precepts given by God
1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
1c) discourse
1c1) the act of speaking, speech
1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
1c3) a kind or style of speaking
1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
1d) doctrine, teaching
1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
2) its use as respect to the MIND alone
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score
2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
2e1) reason would
2f) reason, cause, ground
3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
Part of Speech: noun masculine

We not only misused this word, but we also misused the word "church". When we talk, we use it to refer to a building.

Richard K. McPherson

tom-g's picture

Hey Kent,

Of all the enumerations you have listed, what exclusions, if any, apply to the statement; "And the word was made flesh", or are all of them included and capable of being comprehended in that statement?

If we use the word church to define a particular building used for religious worship, is that a misuse of the word?

Tom

Kent's picture

Tom,

You write, "If we use the word church to define a particular building used for religious worship, is that a misuse of the word?"

Church--See: http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/Christ's Ekklesia and The Church Compared.htm (Christ's Ekklesia and The Church Compared) How can we go to "church, if we are the "church"?

Word--John 1:1-3, 14,18 (From article: Is Jesus Yahweh, God Almighty?

verse 1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the Beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

verse 14 “The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

verse 18 “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

How is the word "word" being used in this text? Sure we say things like, "Stay in the word or

John’s gospel is the only one, which begins with a discussion of the eternal existence of Jesus rather than the time He appeared on earth. He is called the “logos” word, the term used by the Greeks in reference to governing power behind all things. The Jews used the term to refer to God. God is spirit (John 2:24). Jesus has manifested the Father (verse 14). The Lord Jesus became that which He was not before, a physical being (verse 14 and Philippians 2:6-8 concerning the nature of Christ. The term “monogenes”, translated “One and Only” (verse 14 and 18), shows the very unique relationship of God the Son to God the Father.

Please notice verse 18: “...ever seen God, but God the One and Only....”. If the phrase “One and Only” in verse 14 refers to Jesus, then the phrase “One and Only” in verse 18 is Jesus also, but the word “God” is used to refer both the Father and the Son.

You asked and talked about the word "word" and how we use it today. I just pointed what is the "word" mean in one ttxt.

God's word would work since the scriptures are 2Ti 3:16

(ALT) All Scripture [is] God-breathed and [is] beneficial for teaching [or, doctrine], for verification [or, reproof], for correcting faults, for instruction in righteousness [or, the behavior that God requires],

(ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(ISV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

If the scriptures are God-breathed and what are the scriptures? At the time of the wirtting it was our OT. Today it is both OT and NT, so in a way it is Jesus (God)(the word that became flesh) that gave us it.

NOTE: The Holy Spirit (God, which incluldes the Father, Son) gave the writers his completed story.

The Bible is for us NOT to us.

Richard K. McPherson

tom-g's picture

Thanks Kent for your comments,

it would seem that the fundamental question involved is expressed in your final comment: "The Bible is for us NOT to us."

On the one hand you seem to say: Everything in the Bible is for us, and on the other hand you seem to say: Nothing in the Bible is to us.

Perhaps if you would clarify the difference you perceive between the two, "Everything for us" and "Nothing to us", it might help. For instance, you seem to have two different meanings for the pronoun "US" as it is expressed in your simple comment. "US meaning all of the whole species of mankind and "US" meaning you and I (and all others you include in "US") distinctly separate from the whole species of mankind.

Tom

Kent's picture

What we called the Bible was written to certain people or group of people personally. There are concepts on how we should live and act towards one another. It gives us examples on how we should be before God.

Look at the time-frame in the text, last days, coming soon, at the door and other words and phrase were writ ting to the first century people not to us 2000 years in the future.

The first century people had no salvation until 70ad, they were living in the last days and we are not, they were looking forward for Jesus's coming and we are not, Romans 7-11 were written to the first century people not use. Calvinism is true from a pre-70ad view point.

I did not say or even perceived, "...other hand you seem to say: Nothing in the Bible is to us." Again there are concepts of life that are time-less.

God means what He says and He says what He means.

"Us" means everyone that are human. Now you are splitting hairs.

What happen of talking about the article. We are drifting off of the subject.

Richard K. McPherson

tom-g's picture

Hey Kent,

I am sorry that you think my question of your comment is off the subject. You must have thought is was enough on the subject to make the statement. You also question the use of "WORD" to the point of listing 26 different uses.

The only way to avoid contradiction or a fallacy is to make certain that the same word is always used in the same way in a sentence. I thought you used the pronoun "US" in two ways in your sentence. The first time with the meaning of all men and the second time in the same sentence meaning Christians or more particularly preterist Christians (which then could have used the same word 3 times in the same sentence with 3 different meanings.)

As far as drifting off the subject of the article, the Poster indicated its purpose was to drive people to discuss what they believe the word is and I thought that was what we were doing. As to splitting hairs, avoiding ambiguity or the fallacy of equivocation may seem many times to be splitting hairs, but very necessarily.

Tom

Kent's picture

The "us" used has the same meaning, "all men".

Who were the Gospels, Letters from Paul and Peter, who were they written to? Was it to a certain group of people or to us 2000 years after it was written? They were written for us to show what they were going through and how God was keeping His promises about His coming in 70ad.

Things had to happen in their physicial life, because Jesus told them that it would happen within their generation. (Matthew 24:34)

Jesus is called, "the word" and "the word" became flesh.

I think are reading things that are not in there.

Richard K. McPherson

finn's picture

Howdy Kent,

The translation you used does not jive with
the King James version.
Which version are you making referance to
and why do you choose so?

gil

Kent's picture

Joh 1:1

(ASV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(BBE) From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.

(ISV) In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(KJV+) In1722 the beginning746 was2258 the3588 Word,3056 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 with4314 God,2316 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 God.2316

(LITV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2

(ASV) The same was in the beginning with God.

(BBE) This Word was from the first in relation with God.

(ISV) He existed in the beginning with God.

(KJV+) The same3778 was2258 in1722 the beginning746 with4314 God.2316

(LITV) He was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3

(ASV) All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

(BBE) All things came into existence through him, and without him nothing was.

(ISV) Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

(KJV+) All things3956 were made1096 by1223 him;846 and2532 without5565 him846 was not3761 any thing1520 made1096 that3739 was made.1096

(LITV) All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Joh 1:14

(ASV) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

(BBE) And so the Word became flesh and took a place among us for a time; and we saw his glory--such glory as is given to an only son by his father--saw it to be true and full of grace.

(ISV) The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We gazed on his glory, the kind of glory that belongs to the Father's unique Son, full of grace and truth.

(KJV+) And2532 the3588 Word3056 was made1096 flesh,4561 and2532 dwelt4637 among1722 us,2254 (and2532 we beheld2300 his846 glory,1391 the glory1391 as5613 of the only begotten3439 of3844 the Father,)3962 full4134 of grace5485 and2532 truth.225

(LITV) And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

2Ti 3:16

(ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(BBE) Every holy Writing which comes from God is of profit for teaching, for training, for guiding, for education in righteousness:

(ISV) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

(KJV+) All3956 Scripture1124 is given by inspiration of God,2315 and2532 is profitable5624 for4314 doctrine,1319 for4314 reproof,1650 for4314 correction,1882 for4314 instruction3809 in1722 righteousness:1343

(LITV) All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Gil, what's your point. They are all saying the samething. (The numbers are Strong's Greek numbers)

Richard K. McPherson

finn's picture

Howdy Kent

John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos (concept),
and the logos (concept) was with God,
and the logos (concept) was God.
John 1:14 And the logos (concept) was personified and dwelt among us

Gil

tom-g's picture

Hey Gil, For your consideration of John i: 1-3:

A copulative compound proposition is always validly able to be reduced to a conditional proposition Jn. 1:1-2
If it is the case that in the beginning was the word and if it is the case that the word was with God and if it is the case that the word was God, then it is the case that the word was in the beginning with God.

A reduplicative tautology. Jn 1:3
All things were made by him, and (without him was not anything made that was made reduces to the tautology) all things were made by him.

Just as the simple term Verily, Verily, this is a compound copulative proposition composed of two categorical propositions.

Just for your consideration,
Tom

Kent's picture

Gil,

Where did you get that word?

Look at he word "Word" in the Greek. Where did you get concept from the meaning of the word "Word"?

Are you saying that Jesus was a concept in the begining and that concept was with God and was God?

If I am reading it correctly, you are saying that Jesus only thought He was with God and is God.

Richard K. McPherson

tom-g's picture

Hey Kent,

The text does not say Jesus was with God in the beginning. It says the WORD was with God in the beginning. Jesus came into existence when the divine seed impregnated the human female egg and the WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Tom

finn's picture

Howdy Tom , Kent

Tom> Just for your consideration,
Gil > You can read it that way.

Greek
Word = Logos
denotes (I) "the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea.

Hebrew
Dabar = ( word, statement, act, thing )

'logos' encompasses 'Thought', 'Speech', and 'Action'.

It’s Kind of like Faith.

“ Hearing the Word of God in advance and acting upon that Word as if it had already happened”

Like Noah, hearing the Word of God in advance of the impending flood,
Acting upon that Word and building the Ark as if the flood had already began.
Then cometh the flood.

The seed of Logos was foreordained in the beginning prior to the creation accounts,
And it was fulfilled at the conception,the birth of Jesus ,the second Adam,Son of God the Father.
So to with the Body of Christ.

What, from the beginning, was a "concept" in the mind of God, was personified first in the person of Jesus Christ, and subsequently in the lives of his followers.

God says of His logos, in Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word (logos) is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

And again in Isaiah 55:11, So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God himself shows that his logos is a concept, beginning in his mind, gaining strength through utterance, culminating in fruition.

Kent> Are you saying that Jesus was a concept in the begining and that concept was with God and was God?
Gil> Yes, It was within the Logos of GOD in his plan and purpose for his creation
And Man.
Kent>If I am reading it correctly, you are saying that Jesus only thought He was with God and is God.
Gil> He knew he was with GOD, as the seed to come, Redeemer /Savior.
Jesus was the Son if God, and he spoke all the words of his Father.

Gil

Kent's picture

Gil,

You are hearing me wrong. Jesus IS God and He will always be. He was on this earth and He is still is. See article: http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/Is Jesus Yahweh.htm

Richard K. McPherson

finn's picture

Kent

I could'nt find the article "Is Jesus Yahweh"?

gil

Kent's picture

Richard K. McPherson

Kent's picture

Tom,

Please read: http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/Is Jesus Yahweh.htm

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are ONE. 3=1 and 1=3

You write:

"The text does not say Jesus was with God in the beginning. It says the WORD was with God in the beginning. Jesus came into existence."

Who is the Word?

Who became flesh? True Jesus came into this world like other humans, but He was still God in the flesh. Jesus has always been into existence, before time began. He created the world. He is the God Almighty. He is the great "I AM" and the list can go on.

Richard K. McPherson

Kent's picture

Tom,

Look at the greek for the word used in this text.

Don't be locked into just one text. Look at the WHOLE picture.

Richard K. McPherson

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43