- This topic has 698 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 24 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Deuteronomy 32:21
They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.Romans 10:19
But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”There you have it do you not know how Jews see most Christians as foolish, you don’t think they completely understand that Jesus is not God and there is no TRINITY but oh well the Jews have been unfaithful to God and not being strict monotheist so God is making them angry on purpose because the gentiles are receiving what they rejected even though most of them have no idea of what they are even worshiping. The Quran was sent down to say okay they rejected the messiah and you guys are making them feel good about it but now we will confirm that you have really rejected the Messiah and WE KNOW WHAT WE WORSHIP and the JEWS KNOW what we worship so now there is no excuse
I disagree, Bd.
The Quran does not understand things like the Son, nor the crucifixion and resurrection, nor the second coming, nor what happens to the dead!
T8 said:
Yes, if he is going to God who is also our God, then those that belong to God will go to the Father as Jesus did. In fact Jesus said it himself. “No man comes to the Father except by me”. Jesus is the prototype son, and we are sons. We will be like him and have a body like his too. He calls us brethren, but God is not our brother. He is the Father. “For us there is one God the Father”. This is fundamental to the true faith. Amen.
Why can’t people accept those who accept this truth? They somehow link this view every time to the JWs, but sometimes they couldn’t be more wrong. I would accept many Trinitarian’s opinion over some things more than I would a JW, simply because I don’t agree with the JWs denial of the power of God, which most trinitarians DON’T deny… yet, some Trinitarians will judge non-trinitarians un-necesarily. We all have to answer to every word we say.
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55)Hi Miia
Just because God’s word accomplishes what he wants it to,
it does NOT make his word his son; did you somehow think it does?Hi Ed.
I don’t know what your point is here.
God’s word was God’s word, and it was spoken through His Son?
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…The last time I checked, a human being is neither a binity or a trinity. To claim that God is a binity or trinity, would end up making the above scripture an untruth.
~~~~~~~~~
Grasshoppert8 –
you are not paying attention. I have told you on multiple occasions on how it is worded. Please take note so you don’t have to accuse me again.
So whose not paying attention…I’m not asking for your understanding of this verse – I’m asking how you would word it…?!
You casually attack the credibility of Bible translators from the comfort of your anonymity (…without realizing the gravity of your actions) – and yet you continually fail to provide us with what you would consider is the correct wording for this verse..
ie. “…the Word was with God, and the Word was ____.” …If you disagree that the Word was God, then how would YOU word it to give the meaning you think it should have..?
So whose not paying attention…I’m not asking for your understanding of this verse – I’m asking how you would word it…?!
You casually attack the credibility of Bible translators from the comfort of your anonymity (…without realizing the gravity of your actions) – and yet you continually fail to provide us with what you would consider is the correct wording for this verse..
ie. “…the Word was with God, and the Word was ____.” …If you disagree that the Word was God, then how would YOU word it to give the meaning you think it should have..?
I will make it easy for you and use another word so you can understand the qualitative use of theos and elohim which we see elsewhere in scripture. It is not hard to understand because English may be different, but it also recognises the difference between identifying and qualifying. e.g., THE river identifies, river qualifies. Like a river qualifies. Like THE river is talking about a specific river. If that is too hard to grasp, then look at the following:
If we construct a similar sentence to John 1:1 but instead of God and the Word, we use Adam and Eve or Man and Woman, then you will clearly see the difference between using a word to identity or to quality.
Your view of John 1: 1 as is many Trinitarians is constructed like this following sentence.
a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE manMy view and others including some Trinitarians takes it as it is written thus it reads like this:
a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was manSee how your view actually makes the woman as the man himself, thus Eve is Adam. Then look how what I have been telling you qualifies Eve as man (mankind). In other words the Word is theos in nature or divine. Some translations recognise this and write it down as such. However, there are also Trinitarian scholars that understand this and read the last mention of theos in John 1:1 as qualitative as is write elsewhere in scripture. They read this understanding even in translations that say: The Word was God.
Take it further. ‘Adam’ is actually the Hebrew word for ‘Man’, yet Eve is considered part of man as God made man in his image, male and female right. Thus it is correct that ‘Eve’ is actually ‘adam’, however she is not ‘Adam’. In other words she is part of mankind, but not the Man herself.
Let’s further apply your same sentence construction of John 1:1 and your view of it to Adam and Eve.
Your view:
a) In the beginning was Eve
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was AdamMy view:
a) In the beginning was Eve
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and eve was adamRemember that there is no THE or A in the last mention of theos/god. Trinitarians basically add THE into the verse and JWs add in A. Both are dishonest. Eve is not THE Man and neither is she A man. She is man (mankind). So it is with John 1:1. Further, we are told that “although he existed in the FORM of God, he emptied himself…”. Thus Eve existed in the form of man right, but she was not THE man as you seem to argue in the case of John 1:1 with God and the Word.
With respect to John 1:1 some translations say: “and the Word was divine”. Others say. “as God was the Word was” in recognition of the qualitative usage of theos in John 1:1c.
In short @DavidL
You have to add in THE to make The Word God himself. But THE is not there. BTW, if it was there, then it would say that the Word was God to the exclusion of the Father.
ie. “…the Word was with God, and the Word was ____.” …If you disagree that the Word was God, then how would YOU word it to give the meaning you think it should have..?
the Word was with God, and the Word was theos/god.
I read it as it is written. I don’t add THE Theos or Theos or The God. It is just ‘theos’ without the definite artcle. In English we capitalise when it is preceded with the definite article.
Now to address your point about me ignoring Bible translators. Below are testimonies from scholars and translators who are also Trinitarians. They are saying exactly the same thing. I may disagree with their personal conclusions, but even they admit what I am telling you is the case.
C. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.” The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.
C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (“what”)] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos…That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase. “New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.
James Moffatt: “‘The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,’ simply means “.the word was divine…And the Word became human.’ The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…” Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.
Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.
Henry Alford: “Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, ‘the Father,’ in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.” Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681
B. F. Westcott: “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.” The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.
The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon’s Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d’ en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. .Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos. (H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149).
“The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.” (Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets,” p. 52).
“In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as toHis essence absolute deity” (Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).
“The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not” (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31). “The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted…”(W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 5 vols, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 1:684).
Hi All,
Hereunder are two revelations, which are part of enormous revelation,from God to a human being 78 years ago,
One related to THE HOLY TRINITY and one related to GOD AS A HUMAN BEING IN JESUS FROM BIRTH!
Misguided teaching about the Trinity …. so the Trinity is true
People have a completely wrong concept of the divine Trinity due to the misguided description of a Divinity which consists of three persons. Every thinking human being will deem such an explanation unacceptable, thus it will either be accepted without thought or it will be rejected, whereas a correct explanation can be accepted by every human being since it reveals the essence of the eternal Deity and considerably adds towards enlivening faith in God. The concept of God has already become so vague to people that they find it difficult to have faith, and if they are now expected to understand the Deity as three persons as well the concept becomes even more confused and faith will waver. Indeed, rightly so, because in order to believe in a three-person God, the intellect has to be completely detached. But God has given the human being intellect for the purpose of assessing what he should believe. But with divine assistance, i.e. through the spirit of God, the intellect can certainly acknowledge a Divinity if it is truthfully instructed. In that case even the keenest intellect will not refuse to agree. But this truth reveals God’s Being in the manner that unites
LOVE, WISDOM, AND POWER, within Itself,
that one is unthinkable without the other ….
that love is the fundamental concept from whence wisdom emerges and both express themselves through the strength of will.
Love is the creative principle which gives rise to everything; it is the birth giving strength. However, it does not create aimlessly or arbitrarily but it proceeds with wisdom. Whatever God’s wisdom knows to be good and right is accomplished by His will if love urges Him to do so …. It is the concept of a supremely perfect Being …. Because love, wisdom and omnipotence are evidence of a perfect Entity, Which cannot be exceeded further. Love, wisdom and omnipotence are proof of Divinity, they provide the human being with a concept of the eternal Deity’s substance, but they are not three different divine persons united within one Being ….The misguided doctrine of God’s Trinity has considerably contributed towards people loosing faith, because a description like that had to result in instinctive rejection and thus the grace of prayer was not used, which could have provided the sincerely seeking human being with clarification. The object of their prayer was questionable, people thought it strange to call upon three persons which they should believe to be as one God. Immense confusion has been caused, it was an evident influence of Satan, who forever attempts to undermine the truth, to obscure the essence of God and to estrange God Himself from them. The fact that this misguided teaching was accepted in the first place testifies of the darkened spiritual state of those who, due to their complete lack of enlightenment, did not possess any means of discrimination and hence had been excellent tools in Satan’s hands to distribute this teaching and with this to endanger the faith in a manner as rarely a misguided teaching had achieved. In order to believe in God as a supremely perfect Being, this Being also has to introduce Itself to people such that they can recognise His perfection, also the intellect of a human being who is looking for the truth has to understand such concepts, otherwise he could not be held to account God is not content with blind faith, He demands every teaching to be deliberated and responded to, because faith can only become alive when it has become an inner conviction. When this option is excluded from the start, when people are presented with a misguided teaching for unconditional acceptance, only blind faith can be demanded and achieved by this which is of no value before God. On the contrary, it is far more damaging to the soul, especially when God’s image becomes distorted and thereby the love for Him cannot arise, which is absolutely essential in order to become blessed ….
Amen‘I came into the world….’
All angels in Heaven praise and glorify Me for having descended to Earth in order to redeem the human race…. Not until the soul enters the spiritual kingdom will it recognise what act of love I accomplished for you, for as soon as it is enlightened it can witness everything and therefore also grasp the full significance of My descent, My act of Salvation, and in its love and feeling of gratitude it will only ever give thanks and sing its praises
to the Saviour of humanity, Jesus Christ, Whom it now recognises as its God and Father of eternity
and, in ardent love, is devoted to Him forever. Only a loving heart can assess the depth of My love and mercy which made Me descend to earth into a world of hatred and unkindness…. But people suffered tremendous spiritual hardship for they were gagged by My adversary who had complete control over them, who had deprived them of all freedom and from whom they would have been unable to release themselves without help.
I saw the futile struggle of people who still had a living faith in a God and Creator and to Whom they therefore called in their distress…. I had already informed them long before through seers and prophets of the Messiah’s appearance …. and with anxious need they waited for this Messiah because they still believed in Me. And thus I sent the Saviour from above to them …. I sent My Son to earth in order to subsequently take abode in Him, in order to speak to them Myself, in order to reveal Myself to them and to mature their hearts so that they would learn to recognise Me and understand how I wanted to help them escape their adversity. For their thinking, too, was still far too worldly, they, too, only regarded Me as a Saviour from earthly adversity because they did not recognise their spiritual hardship but this alone motivated Me to descend to earth.
And so I first had to prepare their souls through My teaching, I had to encourage and admonish them to live a life of love and exemplify such a life of love Myself, so that they thereby also gained more knowledge which then enabled them to understand and appreciate the greatest act of divine love….Although My descent to earth certainly took place quite naturally it was nevertheless associated with miraculous side-effects which soon granted those, whose hearts were not entirely devoid of love, bright illumination as to who had come into the world in the infant Jesus.
My boundless love and mercy had sought a path to win My lost living creations back again, and in Jesus, the human being, I walked this path Myself…. Although it was extremely sorrowful and bitter, it nevertheless brought deliverance to the enslaved human race, it brought them salvation from Satan’s power, it brought those of you back to Me again who wanted to find redemption….
I Myself came to earth….
but I was unable to appear in My power and glory, which would have completely consumed you.
For this reason I came inconspicuously into the world in an infant,
Which was and remained a shell for Me until the act of Salvation had been accomplished, for I Myself took the path across the earth in the human being Jesus,
I became human for love of you, My living creations, in order to help you return again to your God and Father of eternity…. Amen
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
There is no need to try hard to make God triune. The Lord God is one. The Father is the one true God. Jesus is his son. This is the faith. It is simple, true, and important to believe this. It is the first commandment and the foundation of the Church. This is why Satan will do anything to detract from this. He will even use well meaning religious people to do his bidding here.
All this garbage about God being three and supporting that hypothesis with philosophizing is not only unnecessary it is wrong. This is how idols are wrought. When the creature designs God with the human spirit and intellect, he is creating an idol which is a God made from his own imagination. Man does not reveal God from his own spirit or mind, but God has revealed himself to mankind through his son whom he sent into the world.
Wakeup people. Eternal life is to know the only true God and his son. Stop messing with the things of God. Do not be like the Pharisees.
@t8
Well…let’s see, I ain’t much of a head-man but I’ll try and string these thoughts of yours together to get some understanding.. The Word was with THE God, but the Word was not THE God, and… He was not ‘a’ god, He was just ‘god’ – The Word was with God and the Word was ‘god’…this is your interpretation of John 1:1… according to your rejection of the trinity, and in contrast to how the Bible itself has been translated..
So…if He was with God and was ‘god’ (as you say)…remembering, as we must, that Jesus openly acknowledged existing with God before creation, in a state, Philippians says, of equality to God – even in the very FORM of God… Christ openly declaring Himself one with the Father, (something no other human can ever do) – all of which clearly confirms the reality of John 1:1 as it stands… yet according to your logic He was theos existing with THE theos but who was not THE theos..??!!
..so the question must be asked of you t8, What sort of theos was Jesus in His pre-incarnation with God – when God Himself states definitively, There is NONE beside Me…and yet Jesus clear says He was there..?!?
Yes the thoughts of men still are more popular than the teachings of God.
Nick,
ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE
BIBLE/BIBLES??????????????????????
God has, and always will have new Lights to communicate, without any diminution to his own Infinite Wisdom.
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
DavidL
As long as you see John 1:1 out of context you will never understand it because it is not about the wording it is about the “beginning” it is talking about and as I have said already over and over that John 1:1 is not about “the beginning” that is genesis it is about the beginning of the “gospel” it is amazing no one clearly sees this as the case but look at John 1:6 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
If this was the beginning that is in Genesis you would have to assume that the first 5 verses are talking about all the rest of the time before John 1:6?
I also keep saying over and over pay attention to metaphor and analogy because if you don’t you get this: John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!
Now when Jesus is called the Lamb of God and He is called the Word of God if the trinity is correct then by extension it could be said “and God was a Lamb” could you except that? Please comment about this
Another point is when a person is not focusing and reads things in Philippians or Colossians like Jesus being in the form of God or the image of the invisible God they tend to ignore that this is said about Humanity in Genesis and it does not say that somehow Adam’s image and likeness changed after they were cast out of the Garden, in-fact in the beginning of Luke it is clear that Adam is called “the son of God”
Luke 3:38Revised Standard Version (RSV)
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
So Adam is called the son of God and he was made in the image and likeness of God yes the express image of the Invisible God
We do not need to turn Jesus into God to give him the high praise, respect and honor that he is due.
To whomever it may concern,
Does 1 John 5:20 call Jesus the true God?
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.If my English Teacher was grading me for writing those words then I would get a mark off for the the fact that the pronoun use is not clear.
Which one is he? Is it “him who is true” and ‘the Father of Jesus Christ” or is it “Jesus Christ”? John’s hearers heard what they were taught on the issue as does T8 and the Trinitarians but the bottom line is the pronoun is unclear and so each hears a different thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
