The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

To t8,

Again I must repeat: I do not simply say that " Jesus is the almighty God". God incarnate is not my stance. PLEASE STOP MISQUOTING ME! Jesus is the ‘Man-Christ’ just as surely as God is the Father of the Son.

Jesus has a ‘dual nature’: flesh(humanity) and Deity(Spirit of God), so that Divinity is clothed in humanity.

Jesus cannot have pre-existed in eternity as trinitarians similarly believe. To be within the realm of eternity suggests that Jesus has always existed. Were that to be true, He could not be the begotten son, made of a woman. A son requires a mother to come into existence.
The attribute of eternal belongs only to God.

Jesus did indeed exist in the thoughts of God before the world began, and this word or thought did indeed become flesh.

I have already proven that without a doubt, Jesus possessed the Divine attributes that only belong to God. This fact is confirmed many times throughoput scripture. Jesus the flesh(humanity) is indeed perfect man, while the……………….must I continue?

As I mentioned before, you have already agreed that my reasoning is sound. Not only sound but as I have shown, completely harmonized with all other scripture.
Try me out on this claim! Bring out any scripture that you feel does not harmonize with this reasoning.

I as always look 4ward 2 ur reply:)

August 7, 2003 at 3:56 am#15491

Participant

To GJG and T8

Relative to your discussion about GJG being of the "oneness" persuasion, I must confess to being a bit confused.

From my own search of the scriptures, GJG’s conclusions seem remarkably sound. That is, if I assume correctly, the Word is by definition and usage referring to God’s plan to reveal Himself by means of His Son. As I Pet. 1:20 states, "He indeed was foreordained before the beginning of the world but manifested in these last times for you." I think John 1:1-4 is best understood as referring to this as the message of God. In verse 14 we see this message personified in God’s only begotten son. As such, the Son was fully and only a man who grew in stature and wisdom and favor with God and man, and when at full manhood was baptised by the spirit of God who indwelled him in all His fullness to accomplish his ministry. Since Jesus’ will was always to do the will of his Father, his every word and action prompted by God’s spirit made him the perfect expression of God. Is this not what you believe? If not, where do we differ?

GJG, let me suggest that rather than "Jesus" being the name of God, it is more accurately the name of God’s SON, the MAN Jesus Christ, who indeed was indwelled by Jehovah (translated Theos in Greek). I think it’s vital to distinguish between the MAN and the GOD who indwelled him.

I would appreciate your thoughts, so we might reach some common ground. May we all pursue this study with humility, respect, and patience. Some of the exchanges by contributors show these qualities to be lacking. A little prayer might go along way.

Thanks for all your efforts to know Him better.

August 7, 2003 at 4:27 am#15519

Participant

To GJG & Larry Gibbons,

Thx for your Posts and advice.

The Father is the Most High God

The Word/Logos was the thought that existed in God's mind only

In time, God clothed this Logos/thought in flesh and this resulted in the birth of Jesus Christ on earth

This miracle was accomplished by God's Spirit and Mary, Jesus mother

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, so they are same person

Jesus has a dual nature. On one hand he is a man (but perfect) and he is also the Father who indwells him. So Jesus is God x humanity in one being

Therefore in this scenario, it is safe to conclude that Jesus is the Father clothed in humanity or human nature/flesh

If so, it becomes evident that Jesus is the Father

Hence GJG believed that the name of God was Jesus, but has since ammended that belief to a similar belief to Larry i.e. Jesus is the name of the union of humanity and God, who came to earth to save us

Larry slightly differs as he believes that Jesus is the name of the humanity part only with regards to the God/Human who came to earth to save us

Could you both let me know if I have interpretted your views correctly. Once this has been accomplished then we can move on from there if that's ok.

August 7, 2003 at 11:19 am#15455

Participant

Hi T8, thanks for your reply, I will try and respond in more detail to the points you have raised about the Church later, but first I will finish my biblical arguments about the Trinity.

I only want to comment now that there are a few problems with the quotes you have posted :

Yes, the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles. But Paul warned us in Acts 20:29-31
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

1) the nature of this apostacy is not specified, so we cannot certainly identify it with any particular belief.

2)we know that even in the time of the Apostles there were heretics. How did the Church identify who was a heretic in the Apostolic era? The people with authority in the Church decided who was and who wasn’t preaching the Gospel as they had received it, and the natural assumption is that they continued doing this in subsequent eras. I see no evidence that the structure of the Church was completely obliterated at any time to allow a complete corruption of its teachings.

3) The example of the wolves and sheep given by St. Paul indicates that any heresies would draw some of the flock away, but would not completely overcome the Church. Just as when wolves attack a flock of sheep they may take a few sheep, but never the whole flock. I dont think Paul meant to imply that a heresy would arise that would completely destroy the Church, or he would have used a different example.

Finally your statement –

The true Church is not a denominational organisation like we see in the world. It is not made up of worldly positions and doesn’t have a business like infrastructure and as such records of heresies or other such things.

This seems to contradict the clear testimony of the New Testament that the Church did indeed have a clear structure of elders, bishops, those who had authority, and also records of heresies since even the Apostles declared some people to be heretics.

August 7, 2003 at 11:47 am#15472

Participant

To Larry Gibbons & t8,

Thank you for the replies.

I must firstly confess that I am not fully versed in the complete ‘how’ and ‘why’ God remains the same one God, as I am relatively new to this teaching. So I can only give my view from a limited understanding.:

Indeed: The Mighty God in Christ; Jehova-Saviour!

I am not too sure about Jesus recieving the indwelling at the baptism, due to these points:

It was necessary for Jesus to be baptized that He might fulfill all righteousness. He certainly was not baptized for His sins, but that He might fulfill the OT scriptures, and set an example for His church. In like manner, it was necassary, for Him to be anointed as the priests and kings were anointed in the OT. However, remember that Jesus Christ was the Word-incarnate FROM THE CONCEPTION in the womb of Mary. The anointing was there for the purpose as the baptism – in fulfillment of scripture.

Likewise, even as a twelve year old boy Jesus was doing the will of His Heavenly Father:

Luke 2:49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?" NKJV

I am at present unaware of any scripture that suggests the indwelling happened at the baptism.

I may be wrong, your thoughts?

Regarding Jesus being the name of God:

I suppose my answer to this is based mostly upon common sense, using the words in my Bible.

Everything in our known reality has a name because it is of created substance. Do you know of anything that does not have a name? God the omnipresent, invisible Spirit is uncreated and more to the point: without a beginning. Thus, it is logical for anyone to understand that before creation He was without a name.

Yet, throughout history God has accepted many titles that describe WHAT He is:

Mighty God, Jehova, Jealous, Wonderful, Counselor, Alpha & Omega, Beginning & the End………etc. He is all of these titles and more.

Being the unchanging Spirit that God is, the same as He was before creation, how can this uncreated substance recieve a name?

Answer: BY MANIFESTING HIMSELF IN A CREATED PERSON, AND THEREBY TAKE UNTO HIMELF HIS OWN PERSONAL NAME. Uncreated, being clothed in created substance.

Is there any other way for God to recieve His own personal name?

Just my thoughts:)

Look 4ward 2 ur reply

August 7, 2003 at 12:04 pm#15424

Participant

Quote

Quote: from t8 on 11:27 pm on Aug. 6, 2003
To GJG & Larry Gibbons,

Thx for your Posts and advice.

Yes Larry as you pointed out, I have a problem with Jesus being the Father, or the name of God being Jesus. I do not believe that these conclusions are scriptural. Can I first establish what I understand your beliefs to be, by listing them below. If I have got it wrong, then I apologise in advance and you can post the amendments.
<ul>
<li>The Father is the Most High God</li>
<li>The Word/Logos was the thought that existed in God’s mind only</li>
<li>In time, God clothed this Logos/thought in flesh and this resulted in the birth of Jesus Christ on earth</li>
<li>This miracle was accomplished by God’s Spirit and Mary, Jesus mother</li>
<li>The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit, so they are same person</li>
<li>Jesus has a dual nature. On one hand he is a man (but perfect) and he is also the Father who indwells him. So Jesus is God x humanity in one being</li>
<li>Therefore in this scenario, it is safe to conclude that Jesus is the Father clothed in humanity or human nature/flesh</li>
<li>If so, it becomes evident that Jesus is the Father</li>
<li>Hence GJG believed that the name of God was Jesus, but has since ammended that belief to a similar belief to Larry i.e. Jesus is the name of the union of humanity and God, who came to earth to save us</li>
<li>Larry slightly differs as he believes that Jesus is the name of the humanity part only with regards to the God/Human who came to earth to save us</li>
</ul>

Could you both let me know if I have interpretted your views correctly. Once this has been accomplished then we can move on from there if that’s ok.

To t8,

Your suggestion is a sound one.:)

By reading the words in your post, it seems as if that pretty much sums up my view.

If I have come across as being impolite in any previous posts, I apologize:)

I am looking forward to moving ahead:)

August 7, 2003 at 12:52 pm#15441

Participant

<a name=part5>Biblical Arguments Part V</a>

The summary now addresses the question of John 1.1

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2
He was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

These verses obviously pose a problem for Arians and they usually make a special effort to “explain” them. The summary devotes a whole section to this verse.

Arians usually attempt to offer seemingly impressive alternative “translations” or “interpretations” of the original Greek to show that this verse doesn’t mean that the Word is literally God, or that he has eternally been with God.

I could also post impressive explanations of Greek grammar which show that not only is the only possible translation of John 1.1 as shown above but that also the only reasonable explanation of this verse is that the Word is literally God and has existed eternally with God.

However, for those of us who are not scholars of ancient Greek we do not need to attempt an analysis of these translations or explanations.

We only need to note that no scholars of any importance can be quoted by the Arians in support of their alternative translations, and that their translation of this verse is never found in any Bibles of any prestige.

Indeed, so embarrasing is this this lack of scholastic support for their interpretation of this verse, that some Arians have even resorted to mis-quoting respected authorities to make it seem that they supported alternative translations when in fact they didn’t. This is particularly common amoungst Jehovah’s Witnesses –

“…….another trait common to Jehovah’s Witnesses, that of half quoting or misquoting a recognized authority to bolster their ungrammatical renditions. On page 776 of the appendix to the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures when quoting Dr. Robertson’s words, ‘among the ancient writers ho theos was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods,’ they fail to note that in the second sentence following, Dr. Robertson says, ‘In the New Testament, however, while we have pros ton theon (John 1:1-2) it is far more common to find simply theos, especially in the Epistles.’
In other words, the writers of the New Testament frequently do not use the article with theos and yet the meaning is perfectly clear in the context, namely that the One True God is intended.”

And

“In conclusion, the position of the writers of this note is made clear at page 774 of the appendix to the New World Translation. of the Christian Greek Scriptures; according to them it is ‘unreasonable’ that the Word (Christ) should be the God with whom He was (John 1:1). Their own manifestly erring reason is made the criterion for determining Scriptural truth. One need only note the obvious misuse in their quotation from Dana and Mantey (the New World Translation of the Christian. Greek Scriptures, pp. 774-775). Mantey clearly means that the Word was Deity in accord with the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, but the writers have dragged in the interpretation ‘a god’ to suit their own purpose, which purpose is the denial of Christ’s Deity, and as a result a denial of the Word of God. The late Dr. Mantey publicly stated that he was quoted out of` context and he personally wrote the Watchtower, declaring ‘there is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that ‘a god’ was a permissible translation in John 1 :1 and it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 The Word was a god’ (Michael Van Buskirk, The Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower, P.O. Box 2067, Costa Mesa, CA 92626: CARIS, 1976, p. 11)." (The Kingdom of the Cults, P. 85-87)”

On page 1 of this debate, a Jehovahs Witness posted a list of Bibles which have alternative translations of John 1.1 –

“Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider. “

Let us examine the credibilty of these so called alternative translations –

First Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text. What does corrected text mean? Mr. Thomas Belsham after Archbishop Newcome’s death, altered Newcome’s text! [See page 394, "Manual of Biblical Bibliography".] This altered text dishonoring Archbishop Newcome’s careful scholarship also provided a basis for the New World Translation’s "…and the Word was a god".(see also the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, page 1160, 1969 ed.) Archbishop Newcome certainly never said, the Word was "a god".

This Bible was subsequently printed and distributed by a unitarian organisation. (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, by the Distribution of Books)

Conclusion: not credible.

The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

Produced by a Christadelphian named Benjamin Wilson, with no credentials in Greek.

Conclusion: not credible

The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

Goodspeed, Edgar: The Complete Bible, an American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith. Greek into English but a two man translation, whereas all other major translations had between 40-100 different scholars involved in the translation. Goodspeed was a liberal theologian. Smith, J. M. Powis: The Complete Bible, an American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith. Smith was a professor in a radical liberal institution, the University of Chicago. His attitude toward the virgin birth is evidenced by the way he translated Isaiah 7:14 – "A young woman is with child …" The Complete Bible renders Matthew 1:23 as "A maiden will become pregnant …" – again denying the virgin birth. Even if one might debate whether the Hebrew word has to mean virgin, there is no question that the Greek word parthenos in the passage in Matthew means virgin. This is scholarly consensus. His formulation of Matthew 1:23 is unquestionably a mistranslation. Smith regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus’ virgin birth, His raising of the dead, and others as mere myth or legend.

Conclusion: not credible

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Jehovahs Witnesses own “translation”.

Translated by a committee of 5, none of whom had any qualifications in Greek or Hebrew.

Dr. Julius Mantey one of the leading Greek scholars of the world, author if the Hellenistic Greek Reader and co-author of A Manual Grammar of The Greek New Testament had this to say about the New World Translation:

" I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures…. it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a
translation."

Dr. Metzger, professor of New Testament language and literature at Princetown Theological Seminary and author of The Text of The New Testament, observes.

" The Jehovah’s Witnesses have incorporated in their translations of the New Testament several quite erroneous rendering of the Greek."

Dr. Robert Countess wrote his dissertation for his Ph.D. in Greek in the New World Translation. He concluded the the Jehovah’s Witness’s translation:

"Has been largely unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation.It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. Ant others it is neither modern nor scholarly. And interwoven throughout its fabric is inconsistent application of its own principles."

Conclusion: not credible

The other Bibles quoted are such obscure/foreign versions I have been unable to find any information about them, if indeed they do exist.

Conclusion: not credible

On the other hand, we can look at the credentials of well known Bibles which correctly translate John 1.1 (which I posted earlier)

New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.

King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.

New King James Version – 119 scholars.

New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars

Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars

English Standard Version – 100+ scholars

New Jerusalem Bible – 36 scholars

etc. etc.

We can also see some opinions of recognized Greek scholars on John 1.1 –

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.

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.

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into thinking that the correct understanding of the statement would be that ‘the word was a God’ (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Julius R. Mantey: "Since Colwell’s and Harner’s article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering… In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation… John 1:1, which reads ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’ is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,’ in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Statement by J. R. Mantey, published in various sources.

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.

Bruce Metzger: "It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists… As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

Randolph O. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ‘…and the Word was a God.’ The article with logos, shows that logos is the subject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate ‘…and the Word was God.’ John is not saying as Jehovah’s Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), p.4.

E. C. Colwell: "…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so." "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

Who are these scholars? Many of them are world-renowned Greek scholars whose works the Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves have quoted in their publications, notably Robertson, Harner, and Mantey, in defense of their "a god" translation of John 1:1! Westcott is the Greek scholar who with Hort edited the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yeager is a professor of Greek and the star pupil of Julius Mantey. Metzger is the world’s leading scholar on the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament.

It is scholars of this caliber who insist that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God.

More later.

Be Well.

August 7, 2003 at 1:51 pm#15359

Participant

August 7, 2003 at 4:45 pm#15392

Participant

<a name="part6">Biblical Arguments part VI</a>

The summary offers us this paraphrase of John 1.1 –

John 1:1 (English-NIV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
If we change the word ‘Word’ for Eve and God for ‘Adam’ we get the following: In the beginning was Eve. And Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam. She was in the beginning with Adam.
We can see here that Eve came from Adam but Eve isn’t Adam. Likewise we know that Jesus came from God, but does John 1:1 say that Jesus is God??

However, this paraphrase commits the error of substituting the word Adam for God. God is a class of being, it is not a proper name, like Adam.

Therefore the correct paraphrase would be –

In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN.

Just as "man" can refer specifically to male to the exclusion of female, So also God can refer to the Father to the exclusion of the Son. However, just as "man" can include both male and female as a class of being, (Gen 5:2 "He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man"), so too "God" can include both Father and Son as a class of being, as in John 1:1.

The paraphrase given in the summary misrepresents Trinitarians as Modalists, i.e is saying that the Father is the same person as the Son.

Another common mistake is the Adoptionist or Logos theology position as currently taught by Christadelphians, which would paraphrase as –

In the beginning, God had a plan to eventually create EVE, and EVE, as God imagined, was with MAN, and EVE, as God imagined, was MAN. v1-2 … Finally, the thought/plan became flesh when EVE was actually created. v14

Meaning –

"In the beginning God had a fore-ordained plan in his mind (logos). And this fore-ordained plan was with God, and this plan was as inseparable from God as is a thought from the person thinking it – thus the plan was God." v1-2 … "And Jesus Christ came into personal existence for the first time at His conception, being a creature based upon God’s fore-ordained plan in the beginning. Now God’s plan was materialized in all its fulness."

Christadelphians would argue that the phrase, "the Word was with God" does not mean the Son and the Father are distinct. "Word" (Gr. logos) simply means "something said" and refers to God’s speaking in creation ("In the beginning" – cp. Gen 1:1,3).

However this position can also be shown to be incorrect as the word "with" (Gr. pros) means "to, towards" when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated "to" or "toward" (NKJV) or "unto" (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to "something said" coming FROM God.

So we can see that the Trinitarian position is the only logical and consistent interpretation of John 1.1 which defines the word "God" [theos] in John 1:1-2 with the identical definition throughout (God, as a class of being, not as a name).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (equal class of being God), and the Word was God (equal class of being God)."

That the word God here refers to class of being and not as a name was confirmed by some of the expert opinions I posted in Part V –

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, ‘the Father,’ in person. “

I will take the opportunity to post some more expert opinions here –

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."

Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause ‘the Word’ is declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a god, ‘ a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain’s leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

Need I continue?

If an impartial and objective person genuinely seeking the truth were asked to choose between the position of the scholars and prestigious Bibles I have listed above, or to accept the position of amateur Arian linguists, or translations such as the New World Translation is there any doubt which one they would choose?

I believe that the matter of John 1.1 is now so clearly beyond all doubt that if someone were to continue arguing for any alternative translation we would have to ask if it was possible to convince them by any means at all. There are some people who still insist the Earth is flat, despite the irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and it is simply impossible to convince that sort of person of anything.

More later.

Be Well.

August 7, 2003 at 10:23 pm#15257

Participant

T8, I appreciated the way you spelled out what you assume I believe. You are right on the mark except for the three following conclusions you mention:

1. Jesus has a dual nature. On one hand he is a man (but perfect) and he is also the Father who indwells him. So Jesus is God x humanity in one being.

You conclude that Jesus is also the Father. By no means! He is the SON, the man that God used to reveal Himself. As I’ve noted in previous posts, the scriptures point to both our Father and His Son, a team working together, working to accomplish our redemption (See II Cor. 5:19, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.") Each needed the other. God could not be tempted nor die. Jesus needed the wisdom and power provided by God’s spirit in him. Each can rightfully be called our savior. A question: Did Jesus do the miracles, appear to be omniscient, and declare the truth or was it God in him? John 14:10 shows it was his Father in him that did the works. Remember John 7:16, "Jesus answered them, and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.’"

2. Jesus has a dual nature. On one hand he is a man (but perfect) and he is also the Father who indwells him. So Jesus is God x humanity in one being

Again, Jesus is NOT the Father. He is ONE with his Father in will and purpose only (John 4:34). As one who confessed to be meek and lowly, he walked in total dependence and confident trust in his Father, providing the perfect example of how we are also to walk with God. Though he is the Firsborn, the chosen Messiah annointed by God, he is not ashamed to call us brethren for our relationship to God is like his own.

3. Therefore in this scenario, it is safe to conclude that Jesus is the Father clothed in humanity or human nature/flesh

No, just the opposite. The Father is clothed in the humanity of His Son; only in this sense can we use the term God incarnate.

I hope this is helpful.

May Paul’s prayer in Col 1:9 be true of all of us.

August 7, 2003 at 11:15 pm#15241

Participant

To Larry Gibbons,

Ok so you believe that Jesus is actually a seperate person to the Father. So we have the Father and Son as 2 different persons and the Son has the Fathers Spirit inside him (similar to us having the Spirit). Is this your view?

Also if my memory serves me correctly, I think that you mentioned on your web site that Jesus came into existence at his birth on earth. Previous to that, he only existed as the Logos which is a thought within God before that. Forgive me if I am off track here.

August 7, 2003 at 11:40 pm#15286

Participant

T8, you got it. That’s exactly what I mean. It helps reconcile so many otherwise hard to understand scriptures and brings home to my heart the full meaning of John 17:3. Christ is not only the perfect image of God in revealing his Father but he is the perfect model of what God intends for us to be in His Son.

August 8, 2003 at 2:09 am#15272

Participant

To GJG:

Thanks for your response. I think it’s really helpful to zero in on the most salient points so let me pretty much center on one paragraph from you post:

It was necessary for Jesus to be baptized that He might fulfill all righteousness. He certainly was not baptized for His sins, but that He might fulfill the OT scriptures, and set an example for His church. In like manner, it was necessary, for Him to be anointed as the priests and kings were anointed in the OT. [Certainly Jesus was anointed. He was THE Anointed One, I am convinced when he was baptized by the holy spirit.] However, remember that Jesus Christ was the Word-incarnate FROM THE CONCEPTION in the womb of Mary. The anointing was there for the purpose as the baptism – in fulfillment of scripture.

First, respective to how and when Jesus was indwelled by God’s spirit in all its fullness, as distinguished from the love relationship he had from his earliest childhood, let me urge you to carefully read Matt. 3:13-4-19 concerning his baptism by John when God’s spirit is said to have descended upon him and the heavens were opened, then his temptations in the wilderness, followed by his return to Galilee where he first preached and called his disciples. Surely, this marked the beginning of his ministry when God empowered him by His spirit.

I think we need to remember that Jesus was not born God, as so many believe. If he were God, he could not be man, not when the attributes of the two natures are opposite. Really, everything I read of him attests to his having led a normal, though certainly an exemplary life. We know from Luke that he grew in stature and wisdom and favor with God and man, as we might rightfully expect. I may speculate but one would think Mary would have shared the revelation the angel Gabriel had made to her, and doubtless Jesus from his earliest years would have studied the scriptures, made well aware of all that had been prophesied about him. It’s not surprising that by the age of twelve he astonished the teachers in Jerusalem, even at that age determined to be seeking his Father’s will. Yet, as a model of patience, so uncharacteristic of us, he waited until his appointed hour had come when he was likely 30 years old. Scripture refers to him as the last Adam. The first Adam was certainly not God, and neither was Jesus. Unlike the first Adam, who succumbed to temptation, Jesus was made perfect through his sufferings, truly a life giving spirit. I hope this is helpful, at least in clarifying where I’m coming from.

Second, respecting the name of God, allow me to point out some key verses in the O.T. that shed light on this. We read in Gen. 1:1 that, “In the beginning God [Elohym] created the heavens and the earth.” The plural noun elohym certainly speaks of God’s power as attested to by His creation but falls short of revealing other such characteristics as His love and mercy. What would we do if God, as an invisible, unchanging eternal spirit, had not revealed Himself by His Son? Creation and conscience attest to Him but without His condescending to reveal Himself on our level, we would be left helpless to really know him. Still, he would exist, and as we discover, He assigned Himself a name, even if only for our benefit.

It’s not until Genesis 2:4 when God began dealing with man in His creation that we see Him referred to by the name LORD God. He would be called by this name repeatedly and consistently in the O.T., and in Exodus 3:14, 15 He sheds amazing light upon it. Let me quote the NKJV text:

And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’”

As you likely know, “I AM” in the Hebrew came to be translated as Yahweh or Jehovah. Note then that God instructed Moses to tell Israel that the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohym], the God of your fathers has sent me. Now, God has many titles, but He declares that “This is my name forever,” this was the way He was to be remembered by His people.

Let me explain why I find this so fascinating. If you use a literal version of the Bible such as the KJV, NKJV, NASV, etc. you will find the words Lord God capitalized in two different ways. Why? Because two different Hebrew word couplings translate identically into English. One of them, as noted above is LORD God, that is, Jehovah Elohym. The other is Lord GOD, that is, in the Hebrew, Adonai Jehovah. We find it first used in Genesis 15:2 when God spoke to Abraham. The point is that each of these two different word couplings are used some 300 times in the O.T. giving us a way to know whether God the Father or His Son is being referred to in many passages that would otherwise be unclear. Without saying more here, let me encourage you to visit my website, http://thehighwaytoheaven.com and click on “One God, Two Names.” At the end of that short article a hyperlink will take you to a subweb that explains all this in detail. You will see how the dual nature of Christ is even found in the Old Testament.

I know this is new and perhaps difficult to grasp from this limited sketch, but I trust any effort you spend investigating this will prove to be a real blessing.

August 8, 2003 at 6:04 am#15345

Participant

To Global,

Your quotes are in gray.

1) the nature of this apostacy is not specified, so we cannot certainly identify it with any particular belief.

So why is this verse mentioned at all? I think it is written so we do not follow doctrines and teachings blindly. It was also written so we realise that deception will come and it will be very big. This helps us to be on guard and to pray always and to not be surprised when God shows us that something is wrong, even if it is accepted by many.

I find that most people who believe in the Trinity (including myself once) seem to think that it could not possibly be wrong given it's wide spread acceptance, but Paul's warning about the Apostacy at least makes it possible that the Trinity doctrine could be error. I also think that just as many do not question the Theory of Evolution, there are also many who do not question the Trinity doctrine. This lack of questioning is a major reason why people end up deceived.

Now we know that this Apostacy is described as a great Apostacy and we do know that the trinity is also a very big doctrine. Strange thing is that this doctrine wasn't taught by Jesus and the Apostles. This doctrine is considered foundational by most Christians and most of these Christians happen to belong to one organisation, namely the Roman Catholic Church.

When we look at the fruits of this particular organisation, we see that tens of millions of people have been murdered in the name of preserving the Trinity doctrine and others. One can only conclude that this bad fruit could not possibly come from a good tree and it certainly looks obvious to any clear thinking (non-indoctrinated) person that God could not have inspired such things.

If the thought of the Trinity doctrine being wrong still seems preposterous to you, then I want to remind you that such wide spread acceptance has been wrong before.

Luke 20:46
“Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

Now who would have thought that the teachers of the Law, the very people who you would think would be the experts of the Law are the very people that Jesus condemned. Yet if people judged by the fruit and not by the outward appearance, Jesus wouldn't have needed to warn people to beware of the Pharisees doctrine.

I cannot stress enough, that we should judge by the fruit.

2) we know that even in the time of the Apostles there were heretics. How did the Church identify who was a heretic in the Apostolic era? The people with authority in the Church decided who was and who wasn't preaching the Gospel as they had received it, and the natural assumption is that they continued doing this in subsequent eras. I see no evidence that the structure of the Church was completely obliterated at any time to allow a complete corruption of its teachings.

Paul warned us about to reject those who preach another gospel. If it wasn't the one that he or the other Apostles taught, then we are to reject their message. We shouldn't even invite such a person into our house. I would suppose that the Apostles and other trustworthy believers would have warned the flock of such people. But I doubt that there was some kind of register that listed such people, I would suppose that it was word of mouth and relevant to each area.

The Church has not been completely overcome. How do I know this? Because of the wide spread acceptance among Christians that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is the declaration that Jesus built his Church on. I think that most trinitarians even believe this. Other true doctrines may be lost and false doctrines may be introduced that decieve many, but this foundational doctrine has clearly stood the test of time. The gates of #### will not prevail against the true Church and the Church is clearly not perfect, rather we are being perfected.

The true Church is not a denominational organisation like we see in the world. It is not made up of worldly positions and doesn't have a business like infrastructure and as such records of heresies or other such things.

Yes the Church has a structure, even a hierachy. Christ -> 5 fold ministry -> disciples -> converts. What I actually said was a worldly structure such as we see in a business. These are those man made organisations that build buildings up to Heaven and they love to make a name for themselves. Many denominations are run like businesses and would cease to exist if they ran out of money. History is full of events where denominations clearly love money and will go to extraordinary lengths to get it.

This could not happen to the true Church because the true Church is a term that describes all those that belong to God and believe in his Son. In fact it is Jesus who builds his own Church and he is the Head and we are the body. We are the living stones that make up the Church. It isn't some kind of organisation that builds buildings to her own glory and has a fallable man as CEO.

One is spiritual and the other is carnal.

August 8, 2003 at 7:00 am#15302

Participant

To Larry Gibbons & GJG,

I am assuming that we all believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Before I post again I just want to check one thing with Larry. I know that you believe that Jesus pre existed as the Word and the Word existed in the mind of God only. But then you say the following:

The point is that each of these two different word couplings are used some 300 times in the O.T. giving us a way to know whether God the Father or His Son is being referred to in many passages that would otherwise be unclear.

So are you saying that the Son pre existed before birth on the earth or that he was still at that point in the mind of God only. Just not sure of your stance here.

Thx

August 8, 2003 at 10:18 am#15393

Participant

To Larry Gibbons,

Dual nature at conception, or just humanity?

There is clear reference to Jesus being more than a mere, mortal babe while still in the womb of His mother. The unborn babe Jesus had a supernatural effect towards the unborn ‘John the Baptist’, not to mention, the mother being filled with the Holy Ghost:

Luke 1:39-44
39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. NIV

Would this event have occurred if the unborn baby Jesus had been a mere, mortal child?

Further along in the next chapter we find more evidence of this unborn babe, Jesus, being more than just a mere, mortal child:

Luke 2:25-35
25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:

29 "Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel."

33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. NIV

The scriptures are clear here in that the unborn child is indeed the Christ: The anointed one.

I must point out that, although the parents of Jesus had been visited by the angle of the Lord, they still at this stage were unable to comprehend the ways of Jesus. Yet the boy Jesus Himself was aware of the truth behind His being. Even at the age of twelve Jesus hinted at His role. The Bible is clear that only those who have the Spirit of God are able to see the truth within His greater plan; Jesus knew scriptural truth, because He had the Spirit of truth within Him, but His parents had not been filled with the Holy Ghost (Spirit of truth). Thus, the boy Jesus could not have been taught scriptural truth regarding His role in the Divine plan. Only the Holy Ghost within Him could have done this:

Luke 2:42-50
42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it; 44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously." 49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?" 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. NKJV

With these few example we see that Jesus was indeed born with the dual nature of Divinity (Spirit of God) clothed in humanity. This is evident when we see that, before His baptism, the boy Jesus was much more than a mere, mortal child. Just like the man Jesus, He affected others around Him in ways that cannot be explained using natural terms.

Also, if the boy Jesus did not have the Spirit of God, then who did He belong to as a child, the things of the world or the things of God? Certainly throughout puberty, an ordinary healthy young man would be unable to remain totally sinless. Unless of course, this growing youngster had the very same power from on high (Holy Ghost), that was also given to empower those in the upper room.

Conclusion: For Jesus to remain perfectly sinless as a child, He must have had unnatural self control. The Bible is also clear that this boy was flesh and blood like you and I, being obedient to his parents, yet had knowledge of things that could only have been given by supernatural means. For the boy Jesus to not have the Spirit of God, there would immediately be the issue of ownership: How could He be of God and of the world at the same time? Thus, even as a boy, Jesus did indeed have the Spirit of His Father within Him:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. KJV

Please point out any discrepancies if you find any.
Your thoughts are welcome

BTW: I think that maybe it is neither Biblically nor grammatically correct to use the term ‘person’ when referring to Deity.

August 8, 2003 at 10:26 am#15360

Participant

Quote

Quote: from t8 on 2:00 am on Aug. 8, 2003
To Larry Gibbons & GJG,

I am assuming that we all believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Before I post again I just want to check one thing with Larry. I know that you believe that Jesus pre existed as the Word and the Word existed in the mind of God only. But then you say the following:

<font color=blue>The point is that each of these two different word couplings are used some 300 times in the O.T. giving us a way to know whether God the Father or His Son is being referred to in many passages that would otherwise be unclear. </font>

So are you saying that the Son pre existed before birth on the earth or that he was still at that point in the mind of God only. Just not sure of your stance here.

Thx

Yep, I agree with that:)

August 8, 2003 at 10:56 am#15134

Participant

Hi T8, thanks for answering again.

You said –

“Strange thing is that this doctrine wasn’t taught by Jesus and the Apostles.”

Well, we are discussing that now, and I think I am making a reasonably good job of showing that it was, although I haven’t finished yet.

You said –

“tens of millions of people have been murdered in the name of preserving the Trinity doctrine and others”

Can you prove or justify that claim?

You said –

“this bad fruit could not possibly come from a good tree”

Can you think of any religion or Christian denomination which at some time has not had blood on its hands?

You said –

“God could not have inspired such things”

Jesus said –

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

You said –

“If the thought of the Trinity doctrine being wrong still seems preposterous to you”

It is not seeming less preposterous because so far I have seen nothing in the summary of points that necessarily precludes the Trinity.

You said –

Paul warned us about to reject those who preach another gospel. If it wasn’t the one that he or the other Apostles taught, then we are to reject their message. We shouldn’t even invite such a person into our house. I would suppose that the Apostles and other trustworthy believers would have warned the flock of such people. But I doubt that there was some kind of register that listed such people, I would suppose that it was word of mouth and relevant to each area.

Come on T8, are you seriously proposing this as a serious argument? A Church which has a written list of heretical beliefs is less valid because you “suppose” that the Apostles only had word of mouth lists?

I would like to address the Church structure issue when I have finished with the Trinity as this seems to be a different issue, however for now I would ask you to keep an open mind and not reject the Trinity just because it is taught by nominations which you seem to dislike.

Accepting the Trinity does not mean you have to accept any particular nomination.

Be Well.

August 8, 2003 at 11:53 am#15129

Participant

To Global,

Your quote about all religions having blood on their hands, should prove that you need to see things differently.

No murderer has eternal life inside them and to justify that with any religion proves a false religion or a religion that cannot offer eternal life. Those who murder in the name of God whether they are Moslem, Catholic, Protestant or whatever are not real followers of Christ. That is impossible. They are those who put the Way into disrepute because they pretend to be of God, but are not. They are of their father the Devil who was the murderer from the beginning.

I am talking about spiritual things and then you talk about the importance of carnal things like Christian records and certain kinds of infrastructure that resemble the Roman Catholic traditions.

Did Jesus write anything down and list all those who rejected him and did he list all the false doctrines out there. No he doesn't need to. He knows that God his Father is all knowing. Jesus is the light and darkness cannot comprehend him.

Jesus is the Head of the true Church (The Body of Christ) and he clearly doesn't structure or run his Church the way that worldly businesses are run or denominations. That should be clear to any person who has true understanding.

Why would the true Church need a Roman Catholic (worldly) style infrastructure. If Jesus knows everybody's heart and we are being led by the Spirit, then darkness won't have a chance. Darkness is the lack of light anyway.

The Five Fold ministry is part of the true structure, not a bunch of priests who aren't allowed to marry and the obvious problems that come with these “Do not touch, do not taste” man made commandments. Come on, do you really expect me to consider that any good could come from the Roman Catholic Church.

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.

Your requests for some kind of structure and records in dealing with Heretics is actually found in scripture and stands to this day. But as I said before, you are looking for the Roman Catholic equivalent if it exists and this shows your Roman thinking, which is of no importance to me. It may be possible that some of these things are spoken of in some writings, but a systematic recording of lies and doctrine of demons seems to contradict the following advice:

Romans 16:19
……….. but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

I will spell it out for you so there is no mistaking my point. Such things will not exist as they do in the Roman Catholic Church because one is carnal and the other spiritual. We do not need these kinds of records, they are irrelevant to a Church who's head is Christ and who's members are lead by the Spirit. The Church is a completely different concept from anything in the world. It is not of this world.

Anyway we can talk about denominations and their foundations (creeds) till the cows come home, I will leave it there as far as denominations go and let the readers make up their own mind. If you or anyone else wishes to continue with this subject, then I think we should start up a new discussion and I can include the information you are after with regards to the sins of the Roman Catholic Church etc from Encyclopaedia's and the like. It could be called “Will the true Church please stand up”, or something like that.

My next Post to you will be based on scriptural evidence and will be the reply to your points.

August 9, 2003 at 8:42 pm#15425