TonyN

I would never say nor infer that "the word is the eternal aspect of the Father" because the Bible knows no such thing.

That is just my opinion (Christ walking in the garden of Eden). Since He is the *word* of God, God speaks to mankind by means of Christ both in the Old Testament and New Testament. God always uses intermediaries to speak for Him whether they be prophets or angels or Christ. I am not inspired. When someone quotes someone like Athanasius to *prove* a point in the Scriptures, that is appealing to extra-biblical sources. I surely would not want anyone appealing to me and say: See, Saint Tony, back in 2007 said Aionios does not mean eternal therefore it doesn't.


Something such as a "word" that is "with" God cannot be "GOD". As I have stated before, what does John here mean by "God"? God is not a proper noun. It is merely a title and shows what one does. Moses, in the Old Testament was called God and Aaron was his prophet. Does this mean that Moses was God absolute? No.

Does "word," because it is masculine in Greek mean "he" or "him"? If one does a thorough examination of logos (word) one will come to the conclusion that "it" is a better word when refering to "logos."

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. "
Joh 1:2 This was in the beginning toward God.
Joh 1:3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being."
Joh 1:4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
Joh 1:5 And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not."

Also, "In the beginning" there is no definite article (the) in this clause. It could be transated "In beginning this document, the word was . . . ." In other words, this is not telling us about the absolute beginning of everything.




The bolded "no man has seen or can see" is concerning the glorified Christ. No man has literally seen or can see Him due to Him dwelling where no man can go "light inaccessible." And His glory is above the noonday sun. When Saul, later Paul, saw the risen Lord on the road to Damascus he was not able to look at or see him and was blinded by the intense light.

No, it is contradictory to say He will quit reigning and say He will never quit reigning. It has nothing to do with the incarnation. This is speaking of Christ after His incarnation and after His glorification as the risen Christ. He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father. He quits reigning. He subjects Himself to God. It never states that He quits reigning but somehow God is going to make it so He never really quits.

DBT

But as you are presenting your opinions as a part of your argument, you still haven't explained how you personally determine who, in regard to God's intermediaries, is inspired?

Human beings wrote the works that make up the bible. Human beings put it together, and human beings have endeavoured to interpret its meaning. One could accept the words of Athanasius as being the 'truth' as easily as yours - as both have valid points, and shortcomings.

What makes him wrong, and you right Tony? When in fact you are both accepting the bible, its enterpretation, and its claim to be a factual account of creation, on nothing more than your own authority?

Tony, this is just too convoluted to make sense.

TonyN

The messengers or angels in the Old Testament spoke as if they were God. God was using them as His mouthpiece if you will; the prophets likewise. The pre-incarnate (if you don't mind me using an unscriptural word "pre-incarnate") Christ was also used of God as His mouthpiece. In the New Testament Christ said that the words and acts (miracles) wraught by Christ was the Father speaking and acting. Thus again showing Christ to be God's Logos (Word). The last inspired person to complete God's revelation to mankind was the Apostle Paul. Col 1:25 "of which I became a dispenser, in accord with the administration of God, which is granted to me for you, to complete the word of God -" We no longer need people to give further revelations of God.

But there are now teachers, preachers and evangelists. How does one know if a teacher is teaching correctly? Just one little hint is this:
1Ti 4:9-11 Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome (10) (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, (11) especially of believers. These things be charging and teaching.

The teacher, to be a faithful teacher must teach reliance upon the living God and teach that God is the Saviour of all mankind (not the potential Saviour of all mankind).

There are many other pointers to see if one is a true teacher of God's word or not.

It is possible that Athanasius might have some valid points. I don't recall reading his writings. But if he is teaching against what Paul required of teachers then he should be relegated to the trash heap and likewise me as well!

Please see above about what one is to be teaching.
-----------

Originally Posted by TonyN
No, it is contradictory to say He will quit reigning and say He will never quit reigning. It has nothing to do with the incarnation. This is speaking of Christ after His incarnation and after His glorification as the risen Christ. He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father. He quits reigning. He subjects Himself to God. It never states that He quits reigning but somehow God is going to make it so He never really quits.

Why is it too convoluted? I think it is even more convoluted to take your understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 by stating that:

Nor does the Father cease to reign, when he gives it to the Son; neither the Son, when he delivers it to the Father: but the glory which he had before the world began"....John 13:3.

Now that is what I call convoluted. It is the very antithesis of the conclusion 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 is reaching.