On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:26 -0400 "Hughes Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Judith, You are correct in that we need to remember balance and context. Let me lay it out for you. Jeff was the one who quoted John 1.1 and set up the direct comparison of Jesus = Torah.Jeff: "In the beginninjg was the WORD,, and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God." The WORD my friend is BOTH Yeshua and TORAH. To obey Messiah completely is to be obedient to the Torah of God! NOW, THAT IS THE BIBLICAL VIEW!!Judyt: No Jonathan, Jeff said exactly what he wrote above. You are the one who tried to divide by saying that one is a person and the other Logos. When Jeff uses the word Torah I know what he means, no need to strain at a gnat here.You then defended his interpretation.
Judyt: I agreed with what Jeff wrote in this instance which is that John 1:1 speaks of Jesus and Jesus of Nazareth is also the Word of God. What Jeff calls Torah is also the Word of God - so what's your problem?
Jonathan: I would suggest that defining Logos as Torah would be incorrect.jt: Why? The Word of God is the Word of God, given by inspiration of God (by the Holy Spirit) and no word of prophecy is for private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20,21)Now that you have been proven wrong beyond a shadow of doubt that Torah (law) does not equal Logos (Person of Jesus Christ) you hedge your bets and say that using John 1.1 to illustrate this makes no sense at all. Doubleminded Judy. Jonathan Hughes
Judyt: There's that old "accuser" again - he's never far away, huh Jonathan?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] What is sin?John, last time I checked it was the Holy Spirit who reveals God's Word, it's not Greek logic even thoughGod always makes sense. Do you find the word Torah anywhere in your Bible? It's not in my KJV, noris it in my Strongs Concordance. I understand it to be a word that comes from Jewish tradition which isfine. When Slade and Jeff use it I know what they are talking about. However insisting on this kind ofa test using John 1:1 makes no sense at all. We need to remember balance and context...On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:03:44 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message dated 10/19/2004 11:36:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:We could not rephrase John 1.1 as “In the beginning was Torah, and Torah was with God and Torah was God.”
jt: Why would we want to when scripture clearly says "Word" but as Jeff and Slade both claim Jesus is the Word of God and Torah is The Word of God, so what's the problem?
Judy -- no logic here at all. If the two words refer to the same circumstance, they would be interchangeable and they are clearly are not in the Jo 1:1.
JD
This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above.
Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant contiennent de l’information confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné.
