|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: John 1.1
|
Magersfontein Lugg
Shipmate
# 18240
|
Posted
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
I had a look at the John's Gospel thread on this - helpful indeed, but I can't really comment there as posts were years ago.
So, if it's OK, I'd like to share some thoughts and ask for others thoughts.
Firstly I have to say I find 'Word' talk of Christians confusing at times. Some like John here, seem to mean Jesus.
For others 'the Word' seems to refer to the Bible.
For me I prefer to see the man on earth as 'Jesus' and the second person of the Holy Trinity as Christ. A personal preference, I know, but it works for me.
It seems to me 'the Word' as in John 1.1 is a very important concept. The pre-existent Christ. But I don't hear much talk or preaching about it. What seems to be preferred is 'Lord Jesus' talk.
Where would the idea of the pre existent Christ be supported elsewhere in Scripture?
(And does what I write make sense to people)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 104 | From: Bottle Street | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Magersfontein, welcome to the ship and to Keryg. (I'm a Margery Allingham fan also.)
I don't have any thoughts on your question right now, but I'm sure other people will be along to discuss it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Part of the problem is that 'word' is a word which is used to translate/convey a variety of meanings. Two of the most relevant here are:
1) 'word' as a message, something spoken (or, written). When evangelicals talk of the Bible as the 'word of God' we mean word in this sense, the Bible is a written message from God, a message that is intended to be spoken and proclaimed.
2) 'word' as Logos, which is what we have in John 1. Logos is a Greek word, which has the sense of the meaning behind all things, that which makes sense of things (it's where we get 'logical', and the 'ology' end to words for academic study, eg 'theology'). Some popular strands of Greek philosophy in the first century had a highly developed concept of Logos as pre-existing the universe, directing how the world works. The OT has similar concepts in depicting Wisdom, in Proverbs particularly. John picks up that idea and states it in the opening verses of his Gospel. "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was God and the Word was with God" would have had a lot of those Greeks nodding their head in agreement, and quite a few Rabbis as well. He then throws in the wrench that would have been shocking to Greek philospher and Jewish Rabbi alike ... "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I'm just picking up on one part of your post, the question "Where would the idea of the pre-existent Christ be supported elsewhere in Scripture?"
I think there's some evidence in Paul's Epistles (which are pretty much at the opposite end of the NT timeline from John's gospel, in terms of when they are believed to have been written) to support the idea that Paul believed in and taught about Christ pre-existing the Incarnation. Philippians 2 speaks of Christ as "being in very nature God" and says that he "made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant," which certainly suggests a belief in a divine pre-existing Christ who took on human form.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Magersfontein Lugg: For others 'the Word' seems to refer to the Bible.
There's an anachronism going on here. When John (or whoever) wrote these words, he didn't know they were going to be canonised into the Bible.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
I had a look at the John's Gospel thread on this - helpful indeed, but I can't really comment there as posts were years ago.
So, if it's OK, I'd like to share some thoughts and ask for others thoughts.
Firstly I have to say I find 'Word' talk of Christians confusing at times. Some like John here, seem to mean Jesus.
For others 'the Word' seems to refer to the Bible.
For me I prefer to see the man on earth as 'Jesus' and the second person of the Holy Trinity as Christ. A personal preference, I know, but it works for me.
It seems to me 'the Word' as in John 1.1 is a very important concept. The pre-existent Christ. But I don't hear much talk or preaching about it. What seems to be preferred is 'Lord Jesus' talk.
Where would the idea of the pre existent Christ be supported elsewhere in Scripture?
(And does what I write make sense to people)
Hi,
A thought I found insightful was that as Allan says, the Greek Logos (written word) suggests a Greek concept. The concept though is Jewish as John was a Jewish fisherman and the Jewish concept is something called 'memra' which is conceptually different and means something more like God's manifest proof of himself or his 'signature' which is usually an authenticating presence.
Check out Arnold Fruchtenbaum of Ariel ministries, easily found on the web who is my source for this. He is a messianic Jewish scholar.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
For an example of how the early church believed that Christ was pre-existent, read this from John 12:
quote:
After Jesus had said this, he departed and hid from them. 37 Although he had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
“Lord, who has believed our message,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
39 And so they could not believe, because Isaiah also said,
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and understand with their heart and turn—
and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him. 42 Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God.
John is clearly saying here that what Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6 was the glory of Jesus.
In fact. a number of other translations insert 'Jesus' into verse 41 in order to clarify who the 'him' was that Isaiah saw.
[ 28. October 2014, 06:57: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
And at the very beginning it is about Jesus having concerning a word of life and about us having a life. And where will we be? Up to Heaven or always here?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Firstly I have to say I find 'Word' talk of Christians confusing at times.
It certainly can be and may probably be because Christians find it a confusing concept. For me, John's use of the term 'Word' is defined by how he then goes on to describe Jesus in action throughout his gospel. That, it seems to me, sets the parameters for an understanding.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think that's quite important. John starts "In the beginning was the Word ..." making it sound very like Jesus is the Logos of Greek philosophy or Wisdom from the Jewish literature. His Greek and Jewish readers would have been very tempted to pigeon-hole Jesus: "ah, He's the Logos, He's Wisdom. This becoming flesh and dwelling among us is a bit radical, But, we've got it, we know what John is on about"
But, as you go through his Gospel the Christ he presents proceeds to break out of the pigeon holes and smash them to bits. The danger we face is that we no longer have the cultural background that gives the Word of John 1 an independent existence, our cultural background doesn't have the Logos of the Greek philosophers or Wisdom from Proverbs right up on the surface. We come to the passage with the stories of Jesus from the Gospels and their exposition by preachers from the earliest days of the church as our cultural background to the word 'Word'. Which means we create a pigeon hole to put Jesus in, but it's one that is large enough to encompass the Gospel narratives, so as we read those narrative the Christ we see doesn't break out and smash up our preconceptions.
The danger is that we need to have our preconceptions smashed on a regular basis. We could call it Christian Unrest or something.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Just a point of clarification
Not all Christians believe the entire Bible is the written Word of God. To believe that way is to verge on bibleolitry.
Rather, most mainline Christians understand the Bible more as a cradle on which the Word of God rests. It testifies of Jesus which is the Word of God. Scripture reveals the Word of God through the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Gramps49, thanks for the swipe. Just precisely how does my view of the Scriptures verge on bibliolatry? Because you've just tarred a whole lot of people with a very broad brush.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
He clearly thinks that Marxists worship Das Kapital, after all those are the actual written words of Karl Marx. And, fans of assorted pop, movie and sports stars worship their assorted autobiographies.
Ridiculous? Of course, but so is the suggestion that billions of Christians worship the Bible because we believe that God in some real sense wrote it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."<snip>Where would the idea of the pre existent Christ be supported elsewhere in Scripture?<snip.
The ides is found (IMHO) in Colossians 1.15-20, and (in John again) 8.58
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
John was a Jewish fisherman
The field of Johannine scholarship is a complex one, and I'm no expert, but I think that most scholars would dispute a literal equivalence between author of any of the five NT books with the name 'John' and John the Apostle.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
John was a Jewish fisherman
The field of Johannine scholarship is a complex one, and I'm no expert, but I think that most scholars would dispute a literal equivalence between author of any of the five NT books with the name 'John' and John the Apostle.
t
Of course. I guess that my point only holds if the apostle John was that actual author. Interestingly I just finished reading this gospel and the very end verse seems to make the claim that the one who wrote its was the one who leaned on Jesus breast at the last supper and the statement is made that we know this testimony is true which is also stated in the epistle of 1John.(John 21:20-25 and 1John5:20. "We are in him who is true" John seems to identify himself also in ch1 v1 of one John by saying that he has both beheld and handled or touched Jesus.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I guess that my point only holds if the apostle John was that actual author. Interestingly I just finished reading this gospel and the very end verse seems to make the claim that the one who wrote its was the one who leaned on Jesus breast at the last supper and the statement is made that we know this testimony is true which is also stated in the epistle of 1John.(John 21:20-25 and 1John5:20. "We are in him who is true" John seems to identify himself also in ch1 v1 of one John by saying that he has both beheld and handled or touched Jesus.
I've always read John 21:20-25 as meaning that John the Apostle was the primary source the author had worked with, not that he was the author himself. I think your associated reading of 1 John 5:20 is a touch tenuous.
But again - don't take my word for it. I'm merely pointing up that Johannine authorship is a complex open question, not just a matter of reading the author's name on the flyleaf.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I guess that my point only holds if the apostle John was that actual author. Interestingly I just finished reading this gospel and the very end verse seems to make the claim that the one who wrote its was the one who leaned on Jesus breast at the last supper and the statement is made that we know this testimony is true which is also stated in the epistle of 1John.(John 21:20-25 and 1John5:20. "We are in him who is true" John seems to identify himself also in ch1 v1 of one John by saying that he has both beheld and handled or touched Jesus.
I've always read John 21:20-25 as meaning that John the Apostle was the primary source the author had worked with, not that he was the author himself. I think your associated reading of 1 John 5:20 is a touch tenuous.
But again - don't take my word for it. I'm merely pointing up that Johannine authorship is a complex open question, not just a matter of reading the author's name on the flyleaf.
t
Point taken
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is the pre-existence of Christ being referred to when he is called "the lamb slain before the foundation of the World"? (Rev 13:8) Or maybe there's something else going on there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the pre-existence of Christ being referred to when he is called "the lamb slain before the foundation of the World"? (Rev 13:8) Or maybe there's something else going on there.
Probably need to get Nigel to comment on that but it does seem so to me. The fact that history looks forward to the cross and back to it illustrates it's timelessness or maybe it's transcendence of the age in which it occurred but also it's efficacy in a universal sense. Christ's insertion into history changes and defines the eternal state but that's getting a bit metaphysical about it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the pre-existence of Christ being referred to when he is called "the lamb slain before the foundation of the World"? (Rev 13:8) Or maybe there's something else going on there.
Probably need to get Nigel to comment on that but it does seem so to me. The fact that history looks forward to the cross and back to it illustrates it's timelessness or maybe it's transcendence of the age in which it occurred but also it's efficacy in a universal sense. Christ's insertion into history changes and defines the eternal state but that's getting a bit metaphysical about it.
That's my interpretation too. The external facts of the Incarnation happened when they happened, but the spiritual effects are eternal, existing, and having effect, from before time began until after time shall be no more.
I mean, that's what I believe personally, and I think it's what the Johannine authors broadly intend in both cases, and I think that it's presence in church doctrine derives in large part from these verses.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Magersfontein Lugg: For others 'the Word' seems to refer to the Bible.
There's an anachronism going on here. When John (or whoever) wrote these words, he didn't know they were going to be canonised into the Bible.
A while back I did a search for all the passages in the Bible that refer to "the word of God" or "the word of the Lord" and scanned through them. Nowhere--and I admit this was a cursory reading--did I get the sense that these phrases referred to "the Bible." This supports the belief I've long had that "Word of God = Bible" is itself an unbiblical notion.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the pre-existence of Christ being referred to when he is called "the lamb slain before the foundation of the World"? (Rev 13:8) Or maybe there's something else going on there.
Mousie, I am intrigued. Can you tell us what you think that 'something else' might be?
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
...This supports the belief I've long had that "Word of God = Bible" is itself an unbiblical notion.
The confusion is thinking that "Word of God" = "words of God". The word "Word" is metaphorical: it indicates that the Bible is a mechanism (and not the only one) through which God communicates with us. It does not indicate that the Bible was dictated by God.
quote:
The Bible is sacred scripture, not because of its origin, but because our ancestors in the faith declared that these particular 66 books [or more if you are Catholic, Orthodox or some forms of Anglican] are sacred, that is authoritative. That is why the Bible has authority - not because it was uniquely and directly inspired by God. [From Marcus Borg's "Speaking Christian"]
This is a key point on which Christianity differs from Islam. In Islam, the Koran is the words of God. In Christianity, Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is important principally because it describes and reveals Christ. The Bible is the manger in which we find Christ.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Magersfontein Lugg: For others 'the Word' seems to refer to the Bible.
There's an anachronism going on here. When John (or whoever) wrote these words, he didn't know they were going to be canonised into the Bible.
A while back I did a search for all the passages in the Bible that refer to "the word of God" or "the word of the Lord" and scanned through them. Nowhere--and I admit this was a cursory reading--did I get the sense that these phrases referred to "the Bible." This supports the belief I've long had that "Word of God = Bible" is itself an unbiblical notion.
I agree that the notion that the Bible is the Word of God is not particularly biblical because very little of the Bible refers to itself or its contents.
However, let me just point out that in addition to the not-infrequent passages in the Old Testament that start along the lines of "The word of the LORD came to me, saying ..." there is one rather forcefully worded exception in Revelation 22, where the text refers to itself as the "the words of the prophecy of this book" (verses 10 and 18), and where it predicts rather dire consequences (also in verse 18) from God for anyone who adds to or takes away from its words. It's not quite the same as claiming itself to be the Word of God, but it is clearly claiming to have Divine authority behind it.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
As I understand it, the prologue of John is a midrash on the beginning of the bible: Genesis. It starts the same way. "In the beginning".
God speaks and the universe is created. God's word is creative power.
God's word comes up all over the place in the OT. The psalm I read today was:
He sends out his command to the earth;
his word swiftly.
He gives snow like wool;
he scatters frost like ashes.
He hurls down hail like crumbs—
who can stand before his cold?
He sends out his word and melts them;
he makes his wind blow, and the waters flow.
He declares his word to Jacob,
his statutes and ordinances to Israel.
Seems to be a mixture of creative power, prophecy, law, wisdom, Jesus all mixed up.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
A few things:
--I've always liked the fact that the John 1:1 Logos was tied in with Greek thought, because it means that God is involved with everyone, and there are clues built into Nature. (AKA "general revelation".)
--Some fundamentalists think that Melchizedek is a pre-Incarnation visitation from Christ. IIRC, the main reason is that Abraham made offerings to him, and it would be wrong to do that for anyone who's not God. Plus M. was very mysterious. IIRC, he said some mysterious things, too.
--I grew up fundamentalist, and the attitude on the whole "Word of God" thing was that the Bible is the word about the Word. But the Bible was believed to have been directly given from God, actually *dictated*, and perfect in the original manuscripts. So the Bible is literally the Word of God--God's own words.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the pre-existence of Christ being referred to when he is called "the lamb slain before the foundation of the World"? (Rev 13:8) Or maybe there's something else going on there.
Different versions translate this in two different ways. Either the phrase “Before / Since the foundation of the world” is linked with the verb “slain” to read “...whose name has not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world”, or the phrase is worked in the same way it appears in Rev. 17:8 (“...all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world...”) and linked to “written” to read “whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered”
Both are grammatically possible, but I think the latter more likely – the former seems to strain the language use to talk of Jesus being slain before creation and 17:8 matches better with the latter.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
There's a rather nice prayer in A Prayer Book for Australia (Anglican) that encapsulates word theology quite nicely:
Lord Christ, eternal Word and Light of the Father's glory: send your light and your truth that we may both know and proclaim your word of life, to the glory of God the Father, for you now live and reign, God for all eternity. Amen.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the pre-existence of Christ being referred to when he is called "the lamb slain before the foundation of the World"? (Rev 13:8) Or maybe there's something else going on there.
Mousie, I am intrigued. Can you tell us what you think that 'something else' might be?
I don't have one. I just wanted to leave it open so I didn't seem like a total rube when everyone came back and said, "You idiot. It doesn't mean that at all." I don't claim to be a theologian or play one on TV.
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
The confusion is thinking that "Word of God" = "words of God". The word "Word" is metaphorical: it indicates that the Bible is a mechanism (and not the only one) through which God communicates with us. It does not indicate that the Bible was dictated by God.
I think the term is too lofty or powerful to describe the Bible, which although "God-breathed," is still just a bunch of books, compared to the WORD, which is Christ, God incarnate, second person of the Trinity, ya-da. I think the old testament passages that say "the word of the Lord came to me" cannot be made by any stretch of the imagination to mean "the bible came to me." Whatever they mean, it's not that.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Some fundamentalists think that Melchizedek is a pre-Incarnation visitation from Christ. IIRC, the main reason is that Abraham made offerings to him, and it would be wrong to do that for anyone who's not God. Plus M. was very mysterious. IIRC, he said some mysterious things, too.
And there's the passage in Hebrews which says Christ is a high priest of the order of Melchizedek, definitely tying the two together quite firmly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
