First Word of Jesus was repent

[Mattathias]

2. For John 1 see English translations prior to 1611.

For example,

”In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it and without it was made nothinge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was ye lyght of men and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darckness comprehended it not.”

William Tyndale, The New Testament, 1534

 

[Duskey]

Christians often scold other Christians for trying to be perfect before the Lord. They point out that it is impossible to achieve perfection and it is prideful to even try. They point to the fact that our personal righteousness does not save us, we are misinformed to even try to achieve it.

Repentance would necessarily mean working toward our personal ability to be righteous. Jesus told us in His very first message to us to repent.

Matthews 4:17 From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has become near”.

More importantly, Matthew 28:20, “I am with you always, till the end of time.”

 

[Mattathias]

3. Colossians 1 attributes the new creation, not the Genesis creation, to Jesus.

“For in [not “by“] him [Christ] all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through [not “by“] him and for him.”

Colossians 1:16 NIV (also ASV, EHV, Mounce, NABRE, NET, NRSV, NTE, OJB, RSV, YLT)

Brackets are mine.

These translations align with the Apostles Creed (“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth”...”)

All things were made by the Father because of the Son, for the Son, not by the Son. Jesus is the reason for the creation.

”For because of him the universe was created.”

Moulton, Milligan, Grammar of the New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 253

 

[Diakonos]

1. A contradiction of the Apostles Creed.
2. For John 1 see English translations prior to 1611.
3. Colossians 1 attributes the new creation, not the Genesis creation, to Jesus.

1. So you only accept doctrines that agree with the Bible AND the Apostle's Creed?

2. "1In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word.
2The same was in the beginning with god.
3All things were made by it (the Word), and without it, was made no thing, that made was.
4In it was life, And life was the light of men,
5And the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not. "
-Tyndale Bible (1530)

3. Let's just see what Paul really said to the Colossians:
Vs 13-14: The New Creation
Vs 15-16: The Genesis Creation
"13 For He (The Father) rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him."

 

[Mattathias]

1. So you only accept doctrines that agree with the Bible AND the Apostle's Creed?

I only accept doctrines which don’t oppose the Bible and the Apostles Creed.

2. "1In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word.
2The same was in the beginning with god.
3All things were made by it (the Word), and without it, was made no thing, that made was.
4In it was life, And life was the light of men,
5And the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not. "
-Tyndale Bible (1530)

The key word you highlighted is “it”. John is speaking here about the Father’s logos (”it”), not Jesus.

3. Let's just see what Paul really said to the Colossians:
Vs 13-14: The New Creation
Vs 15-16: The Genesis Creation
"13 For He (The Father) rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him."

See my post #43 on the translation of verse 16.

 

[garee]

1. So you only accept doctrines that agree with the Bible AND the Apostle's Creed?

2. "1In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word.
2The same was in the beginning with god.
3All things were made by it (the Word), and without it, was made no thing, that made was.
4In it was life, And life was the light of men,
5And the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not. "
-Tyndale Bible (1530)

3. Let's just see what Paul really said to the Colossians:
Vs 13-14: The New Creation
Vs 15-16: The Genesis Creation
"13 For He (The Father) rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him."

I think of it more as, lets see what the Spirit of prophecy said to the Colossians. The letter as a Creed of men, it decreed all Christian dead out of sight out of mind. I would suggest as it is written His the Creed that gives us new life.

Apostle sent one with no other meaning added. Saul before his conversion followed the Creeds of men the 1st century reformation just as during the15th century reformation letters of approval of the Pope Out of sight out of mind the pagan form of religion.

I would think. Not a good idea to turn apostles into Popes. . . gods in the likeness of men

Acts 22: 3-5 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

 

[watchman333]

Christians often scold other Christians for trying to be perfect before the Lord. They point out that it is impossible to achieve perfection and it is prideful to even try. They point to the fact that our personal righteousness does not save us, we are misinformed to even try to achieve it.

Repentance would necessarily mean working toward our personal ability to be righteous. Jesus told us in His very first message to us to repent.

Matthews 4:17 From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has become near”.

Good post Blik. After this flesh age ends people will realize the importance of walking in love and care for our fellow beings, and the importance of walking in righteousness, as best we can, before our Holy Father and His sinless Son. The LORD is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to REPENTANCE. 11 Peter 3:9. That verse is not in the Bible by accident.

 

[Blik]

Good post Blik. After this flesh age ends people will realize the importance of walking in love and care for our fellow beings, and the importance of walking in righteousness, as best we can, before our Holy Father and His sinless Son. The LORD is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to REPENTANCE. 11 Peter 3:9. That verse is not in the Bible by accident.

It comes down to a question of whether Christ forgives the sin we want to keep or does Christ ask us to repent? We know we can't be righteous on our own.

 

[Diakonos]

I only accept doctrines which don’t oppose the Bible and the Apostles Creed

Hmm...Interesting.
Do you believe that the Apostle's creed is perfect (inspired) as the Scriptures are?

John is speaking here about the Father’s logos (”it”), not Jesus

Jesus IS the logos (Word) of God (The Father).
Verse 14 makes that clear:
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14).
Also Rev 19:13-16 (The Coming of Christ)
“He (Jesus) is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”” (Revelation 19:13–16)
"I am a king. For this, I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth" (John 19:37)

See my post #43 on the translation of verse 16

It seems like you're interpreting the Bible a certain way in order to fit the apostle's creed...Rather than comparing Scripture with Scripture. Read the rest of the verse: "all things have been created through Him (αὐτός-Him/it-same word in John 1)"

John 1:3 "All things came into being through Him (or it), and apart from Him (or it) nothing came into being that has come into being"
Col 1:16 "by (or in) Him (Jesus) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him (or it) ."

So were all things created through Jesus or through the logos? Or are they one and the same?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Do you believe that the Apostle's creed is perfect (inspired) as the Scriptures are?

While the Apostles' Creed is a good summation of Bible truth, it is definitely not inspired, and some statements are actually subject to misinterpretation.

Traditional churches recite the Apostles' Creed, but it was not put together by the apostles themselves. Nonetheless there is a tradition that the apostles put this creed together (called "the Old Roman Creed") after Pentecost:

"As appealing as it may be to believe in such a gathering, it is highly unlikely that it occurred. An early and telling challenge to its historicity was the observation by Marcus Eugenicus in the fifteenth century that the book of Acts never mentioned it, particularly at the first apostolic council at Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the reality of this event happening some ten days after the Ascension was widely accepted and taught as historical until the fifteenth century."
http://faith-seeking-understanding.org/2015/06/19/the-old-roman-creed/

 

[Blik]

While the Apostles' Creed is a good summation of Bible truth, it is definitely not inspired, and some statements are actually subject to misinterpretation.

Traditional churches recite the Apostles' Creed, but it was not put together by the apostles themselves. Nonetheless there is a tradition that the apostles put this creed together (called "the Old Roman Creed") after Pentecost:

"As appealing as it may be to believe in such a gathering, it is highly unlikely that it occurred. An early and telling challenge to its historicity was the observation by Marcus Eugenicus in the fifteenth century that the book of Acts never mentioned it, particularly at the first apostolic council at Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the reality of this event happening some ten days after the Ascension was widely accepted and taught as historical until the fifteenth century."
http://faith-seeking-understanding.org/2015/06/19/the-old-roman-creed/

We are told not to add to the word of the Lord, and this discussion is about adding the apostles creed. It does seem to sum up the word of the Lord.

If we are not to add or take away from he word why is it so accepted that we take away from the word as in the feasts and then add Christmas and Easter? Or that we have changed the word obsolete into cancel in the case of the old covenant?

 

[Nehemiah6]

If we are not to add or take away from he word why is it so accepted that we take away from the word as in the feasts and then add Christmas and Easter? Or that we have changed the word obsolete into cancel in the case of the old covenant?

Since it is God and Christ who have established the New Covenant with the blood of Christ, you are just like the Pharisees in His time -- OPPOSING the Word of God at every opportunity.

 

[Mattathias]

Hmm...Interesting.
Do you believe that the Apostle's creed is perfect (inspired) as the Scriptures are?

No. I’m simply pointing out that the Apostles Creed supports my understanding and opposes yours, just as your understanding opposes mine and the creed.

I very seldom encounter Christians who are opposed to the Apostles Creed. It makes for an interesting conversation.

Jesus IS the logos (Word) of God (The Father).
Verse 14 makes that clear:
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14).
Also Rev 19:13-16 (The Coming of Christ)
“He (Jesus) is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”” (Revelation 19:13–16)
"I am a king. For this, I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth" (John 19:37)

There’s no doubt in my mind that John believes and is saying, in verse 14, that Jesus is the Father’s logos made flesh.

It seems like you're interpreting the Bible a certain way in order to fit the apostle's creed...Rather than comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address that perception. As I see it, the Apostles Creed is in agreement with comparing scripture with scripture. (I understand that you don’t believe that it is.) Any post-biblical creed, not just the Apostles Creed, is invalid if it contradicts scripture. All post-biblical creeds, not just the Apostles Creed, are either validated or invalidated by scripture. Scripture is neither validated nor invalidated by post-biblical creeds. In other words, creeds are judged by scripture; scripture is not judged by creeds.

Read the rest of the verse: "all things have been created through Him (αὐτός-Him/it-same word in John 1)"

John 1:3 "All things came into being through Him (or it), and apart from Him (or it) nothing came into being that has come into being"
Col 1:16 "by (or in) Him (Jesus) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him (or it) ."

So were all things created through Jesus or through the logos? Or are they one and the same?

Jesus is not an “it” and the phrases “by him” and “in him” aren’t equivalent. It appears to me that you are saying they are.

 

[Blik]

Since it is God and Christ who have established the New Covenant with the blood of Christ, you are just like the Pharisees in His time -- OPPOSING the Word of God at every opportunity.

Does the nee covenant direct us to disregard the scripture to keep the feasts? If so, where in scripture dos it say this?

 

[garee]

No. I’m simply pointing out that the Apostles Creed supports my understanding and opposes yours, just as your understanding opposes mine and the creed.

I very seldom encounter Christians who are opposed to the Apostles Creed. It makes for an interesting conversation.



There’s no doubt in my mind that John believes and is saying, in verse 14, that Jesus is the Father’s logos made flesh.



Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address that perception. As I see it, the Apostles Creed is in agreement with comparing scripture with scripture. (I understand that you don’t believe that it is.) Any post-biblical creed, not just the Apostles Creed, is invalid if it contradicts scripture. All post-biblical creeds, not just the Apostles Creed, are either validated or invalidated by scripture. Scripture is neither validated nor invalidated by post-biblical creeds. In other words, creeds are judged by scripture; scripture is not judged by creeds.



Jesus is not an “it” and the phrases “by him” and “in him” aren’t equivalent. It appears to me that you are saying they are.

Which apostles wrote the Creed? And why not the Creed of Christ .

Did he send this unknown apostle with prophecy ? Or is it simply a private interpretation ..And not equal with it as it is written pointing the author of faith..

It would seen some add new meaning to the word sent one (apostle) creating the some sort of power .

That can also be seen in the words Apolitical time period. or Apostolical succession. All of the sects that desire to lord it over the faith of the pew sitters us that word improperly

 

[Mattathias]

Which apostles wrote the Creed?

The apostles didn’t write the creed.

And why not the Creed of Christ .

That’s a very good question. Do you know what the Creed of Christ is?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Does the new covenant direct us to disregard the scripture to keep the feasts? If so, where in scripture dos it say this?

The feasts, festivals, and holy days of the Old Covenant were mere shadows. The reality is Christ.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the Body is of Christ. (Col 2:16,17)

And without the Temple at Jerusalem (originally the Tabernacle), none of those observances can be truly kept as commanded. You must read and study the Torah more carefully.

 

[Diakonos]

No. I’m simply pointing out that the Apostles Creed supports my understanding and opposes yours, just as your understanding opposes mine and the creed.

I very seldom encounter Christians who are opposed to the Apostles Creed. It makes for an interesting conversation.

Thank you for pointing out your doctrinal preference. But the creed has no bearing of the meaning of a passage of Scripture. The Scriptures are the final authority and the measuring rod of all truth. The creed bows its knee to the Word of God, just as everything else.

There’s no doubt in my mind that John believes and is saying, in verse 14, that Jesus is the Father’s logos made flesh.

Do you think John was correct when he attributed the title "logos" to Jesus in John 1?
Or do you think that there are more than one logos of the Father?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address that perception. As I see it, the Apostles Creed is in agreement with comparing scripture with scripture. (I understand that you don’t believe that it is.) Any post-biblical creed, not just the Apostles Creed, is invalid if it contradicts scripture. All post-biblical creeds, not just the Apostles Creed, are either validated or invalidated by scripture. Scripture is neither validated nor invalidated by post-biblical creeds. In other words, creeds are judged by scripture; scripture is not judged by creeds.

Agreed

Jesus is not an “it” and the phrases “by him” and “in him” aren’t equivalent. It appears to me that you are saying they are.

I am not saying that Jesus is an "it". But when I originally quoted John 1:3, you pointed out that you wouldn't accept a translation of that verse unless it was before the year 1600. So I used the Tyndale translation to show you that Jesus is the logos.
I then realized why you don't accept modern translations of that verse. It is because most modern translations attribute the word "him" as the logos. But some older translations attribute the word "it" to the logos (making the logos seem impersonal).
This is because the Greek word αὐτοῦ can be translated as he, him, she, her, it, they, them (a primary pronoun).

So from that point on, I included both ways it could be translated, in order to show that I wasn't relying on the translation "Him" to prove my point...rather I relied on the parallel phrase "through αὐτοῦ". So it doesn't matter which way you translate αὐτοῦ.
John 1 says that "all things came into being through αὐτοῦ" (him or it)
Colossians 1 says that "all things have been created through αὐτοῦ" (him or it)
John 1 and Colossians 1 must agree (just as all Scripture must)
These two have to refer to the same person/thing. There's no way around it.
John repeated this fact in Revelation 19:13, where he explicitly states that Jesus "is called the Logos of God"
So you either have to accept that Jesus is the Word of God, or you have to say that John was wrong, and the Word of God is someone/something else.

 

[Mattathias]

Do you think John was correct when he attributed the title "logos" to Jesus in John 1?

Yes. As I mentioned previously, Jesus is the Father’s logos made flesh.

Or do you think that there are more than one logos of the Father?

I think John is saying that the Father’s logos (“it”) became a “he” (Jesus) after “it” was incarnated, not before. In the prologue we are pre-incarnation, therefore John is speaking there about the Father and his thought and action - this is an echo of his creative activity in Genesis.

Do you accept that logos has a wide definition, or do you limit it to the title given to Jesus?

I am not saying that Jesus is an "it". But when I originally quoted John 1:3, you pointed out that you wouldn't accept a translation of that verse unless it was before the year 1600.

I’m afraid you misunderstood what I said, and I’ll take the blame for that. I intentionally directed your attention to English translations published prior to 1611 but I didn’t say that I wouldn’t accept translations of the verse published after that date. (I later made reference to several translations that were published after that date to show that there are modern translations which support the concept that logos is “it”, not “he”, prior to the incarnation of the Father’s logos.)

So I used the Tyndale translation to show you that Jesus is the logos.

My point is that John is not speaking about Jesus in the prologue of his Gospel.

I then realized why you don't accept modern translations of that verse.

Please see my comment above. I accept modern translations of the verse. I don’t accept all modern translations of the verse. “It” carries a very different connotation than “he”.

It is because most modern translations attribute the word "him" as the logos. But some older translations attribute the word "it" to the logos (making the logos seem impersonal).

Every person’s logos is personal, not impersonal. That’s as true for the Father and for Jesus as it is for you and for me.

…it doesn't matter which way you translate αὐτοῦ.

That’s a major point of disagreement between us.

John 1 and Colossians 1 must agree (just as all Scripture must)

Agreed.

These two have to refer to the same person/thing. There's no way around it.

Another major point of disagreement between us.

John repeated this fact in

Revelation 19:13, where he explicitly states that Jesus "is called the Logos of God"

This is post-incarnation of the Father’s logos.

So you either have to accept that Jesus is the Word of God, or you have to say that John was wrong...

John isn’t wrong. Jesus is the Word of God.

…and the Word of God is someone/something else.

Prior to the incarnation (John 1:14), the logos is something else.

 

[Blik]

Which apostles wrote the Creed? And why not the Creed of Christ .

Did he send this unknown apostle with prophecy ? Or is it simply a private interpretation ..And not equal with it as it is written pointing the author of faith..

It would seen some add new meaning to the word sent one (apostle) creating the some sort of power .

That can also be seen in the words Apolitical time period. or Apostolical succession. All of the sects that desire to lord it over the faith of the pew sitters us that word improperly

Constantine was a Roman Emperor who God used to make it legal in Rome to be a Christian. He wanted a unified religion for the Romans, and there were many sects in Christianity so he called for a council to unify. Their main job was to define just who Christ was. They wrote the creed, and also established that Passover was not to be celebrated, and they made Easter it's replacement.

Constantine said he was Christian, but he was mainly an emperor, he used religion for his work. When he minted coins they honored the sun god. He told the council that met that he would just go by what they said, but they were instructed this way: whatever the Jews do they were not to do, for (he said) the Jews were evil.