The Trinity Doctrine

[Proclaimer]

Quote

Hey t8…. ….and the Word was God (Joh 1:1) *yawn* Going to bed now.

That part is missing the article.

Men are gods doesn't have the article either, so it cannot be used to say that man is God for that reason.

But the other instances of God and Word have the article in John 1:1, except the last instance that you quoted.

The article is used to define a person (identity), that is why the Logos has an article. This shows that the verse is not talking about an attribute.

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

the article (the) shows identity
lack of an article shows an attribute such as nature or character.

Another example:

Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So Judas was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil.

This is an example of how John 1:1c is constructed.

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18
Your words
“You are truely an oasis of logic and reason in a desert of irrationality….”

Sound doctrine is not based on logic but on revealed truth.
Logic by itself, is for the wise of this world , the greek philosophers and theologians.

1Cor 1.18f
“18For the word of the cross is (A)foolishness to (B)those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is Âthe power of God.
19For it is written,
“(D)I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

20(E)Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of (F)this age? Has not God (G)made foolish the wisdom of (H)the world?

21For since in the wisdom of God (I)the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, (J)God was well-pleased through the (K)foolishness of the message preached to (L)save those who believe.

22For indeed (M)Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

23but we preach [a](N)Christ crucified, (O)to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles (P)foolishness,

24but to those who are (Q)the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ Âthe power of God and (S)the wisdom of God.

25Because the (T)foolishness of God is wiser than men, and (U)the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For consider your (V)calling, brethren, that there were (W)not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

27but (X)God has chosen the foolish things of (Y)the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of (Z)the world to shame the things which are strong,

28and the base things of (AA)the world and the despised God has chosen, (AB)the things that are not, so that He may (AC)nullify the things that are,

29so that (AD)no man may boast before God.

30But by His doing you are in (AE)Christ Jesus, who became to us (AF)wisdom from God, and (AG)righteousness and (AH)sanctification, and (AI)redemption,

31so that, just as it is written, “(AJ)LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 21 2006,06:10)

Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,11:08) Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 21 2006,05:55) Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,10:49) What about the question but how can Jesus be the son of the God that he is? What does it mean to you that Yahshua is the “Son of God”. Please be specific. Does it mean that He was 'birthed' by the Father? Yes or no. It means God is his Father. God is a father because he has a son. The answer is in there if you dig. ….ahhh there's the equivocation…I knew you still had it in you.

This is the part that you cannot take in by reason of that which has filled you up already.

God is divine. His nature is divinity. The son comes from God. He has his nature, not his identity.

So Jesus is divine, but he is not the Divine.

His nature comes from God, but he is not God himself.

OK, now that we have arrived here again, I guess that you are ready to deny this and do another loop on the merry go round.

2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 21 2006,05:48)

Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,10:37) Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 21 2006,05:27) I agree entirely. I think the “the word trinity is found nowhere in the Bible” argument is manifestly the weakest one used against trinitarianism. If it were a valid objection then we should also immediately jettison the biblical concept of 'theocracy' on account of a descriptive title being absent in the biblical text, even though Israel was one! Maybe you don't read the posts that contain scripture that contradicts the trinity. Surely our strength is the scriptures we quote. I don't think anyone here is saying that “the word trinity isn't in the bible” argument is the strongest argument we have. If so, where do we say that? I think you like to pretend that it is the strongest argument, but that exists in your own head my friend. Hey t8, did I write that I was speaking exclusively about the arguments i've read in this forum? Think things through before you jump to conclusions.

Um…. below is the context. I quoted it to save you discovering what you were agreeing to.

Quote

Again, according to your reasoning, there is no reason to accept your entire post because it is nowhere found in the Bible and is the result of inferences you have made. Your whole post is filled with this type of unbiblical inferences, for you quote not one single Scripture in your entire post! Besides, does the word “Bible” appear anywhere in the Bible? If not, you better stop using it! And examine your entire vocabulary, making sure to rid yourself of any non-biblical words! Such is the argumentum absurdum your hermeneutic methodology leads.

Quote

We do not reject the Trinity doctrine because the word 'Trinity' is not in the bible, but because this doctrine is not taught by anyone in the bible.

Quote

Btw t8, if you dismiss or deny the Trinity simply because other religions held similar doctrines, then you must deny Christianity because other religions believed in a single deity.

OK if you agree that this is the weakest one then I do to.
What is the strongest one?

[NickHassan]

Hi ,
Psalm 89 is beautiful and is the one of first times God is celled “Father” and His relationship with His Son, in the type of David, is shown.

Ps 89
“1I will (A)sing of the lovingkindness of the LORD forever;
To all generations I will (B)make known Your Âfaithfulness with my mouth.
2For I have said, “(D)Lovingkindness will be built up forever;
In the heavens You will establish Your (E)faithfulness.”
3″I have made a covenant with (F)My chosen;
I have (G)sworn to David My servant,
4I will establish your (H)seed forever
And build up your (I)throne to all generations.” Selah.
5The (J)heavens will praise Your wonders, O LORD;
Your faithfulness also (K)in the assembly of the (L)holy ones.
6For (M)who in the skies is comparable to the LORD?
Who among the (N)sons of the mighty is like the LORD,
7A God (O)greatly feared in the council of the (P)holy ones,
And (Q)awesome above all those who are around Him?
😯 LORD God of hosts, Âwho is like You, O mighty LORD?
Your faithfulness also surrounds You.
9You rule the swelling of the sea;
When its waves rise, You (S)still them.
10You Yourself crushed (T)Rahab like one who is slain;
You (U)scattered Your enemies with Your mighty arm.
11The (V)heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours;
The (W)world and [a]all it contains, You have founded them.
12The (X)north and the south, You have created them;
(Y)Tabor and (Z)Hermon (AA)shout for joy at Your name.
13You have a strong arm;
Your hand is mighty, Your (AB)right hand is exalted.
14(AC)Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
(AD)Lovingkindness and truth go before You.
15How blessed are the people who know the (AE)joyful sound!
O LORD, they walk in the (AF)light of Your countenance.
16In (AG)Your name they rejoice all the day,
And by Your righteousness they are exalted.
17For You are the glory of (AH)their strength,
And by Your favor our (AI)horn is exalted.
18For our (AJ)shield belongs to the LORD,
[c]And our king to the (AK)Holy One of Israel.
19Once You spoke in vision to Your godly ones,
And said, “I have given help to one who is (AL)mighty;
I have exalted one (AM)chosen from the people.
20″I have (AN)found David My servant;
With My holy (AO)oil I have anointed him,
21With whom (AP)My hand will be established;
My arm also will (AQ)strengthen him.
22″The enemy will not [d]deceive him,
Nor the (AR)son of wickedness afflict him.
23″But I shall (AS)crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.
24″My (AT)faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his (AU)horn will be exalted.
25″I shall also set his hand (AV)on the sea
And his right hand on the rivers.
26″He will cry to Me, 'You are (AW)my Father,
My God, and the (AX)rock of my salvation.'
27″I also shall make him My (AY)firstborn,
The (AZ)highest of the kings of the earth.
28″My (BA)lovingkindness I will keep for him forever,
And My (BB)covenant shall be confirmed to him.
29″So I will establish his (BC)descendants forever
And his (BD)throne (BE)as the days of heaven.
30″If his sons (BF)forsake My law
And do not walk in My judgments,
31If they [e]violate My statutes
And do not keep My commandments,
32Then I will punish their transgression with the (BG)rod
And their iniquity with stripes.
33″But I will not break off (BH)My lovingkindness from him,
Nor deal falsely in My faithfulness.
34″My (BI)covenant I will not violate,
Nor will I (BJ)alter the utterance of My lips.
35″[f]Once I have (BK)sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David.
36″His (BL)descendants shall endure forever
And his (BM)throne (BN)as the sun before Me.
37″It shall be established forever (BO)like the moon,
And the (BP)witness in the sky is faithful.” Selah.
38But You have (BQ)cast off and (BR)rejected,
You have been full of wrath against Your (BS)anointed.
39You have (BT)spurned the covenant of Your servant;
You have (BU)profaned (BV)his crown in the dust.
40You have (BW)broken down all his walls;
You have (BX)brought his strongholds to ruin.
41(BY)All who pass along the way plunder him;
He has become a (BZ)reproach to his neighbors.
42You have (CA)exalted the right hand of his adversaries;
You have (CB)made all his enemies rejoice.
43You also turn back the edge of his sword
And have (CC)not made him stand in battle.
44You have made his (CD)splendor to cease
And cast his throne to the ground.
45You have (CE)shortened the days of his youth;
You have (CF)covered him with shame. Selah.
46(CG)How long, O LORD?
Will You hide Yourself forever?
Will Your (CH)wrath burn like fire?
47(CI)Remember what my span of life is;
For what (CJ)vanity You have created all the sons of men!
48What man can live and not (CK)see death?
Can he (CL)deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah.
49Where are Your former lovingkindnesses, O Lord,
Which You (CM)swore to David in Your faithfulness?
50Remember, O Lord, the (CN)reproach of Your servants;
How I bear in my bosom the reproach of all the many peoples,
51With which (CO)Your enemies have reproached, O LORD,
With which they have reproached the footsteps of (CP)Your anointed.
52(CQ)Blessed be the LORD forever!
Amen and Amen.”

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 20 2006,10:27)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,00:52) seminarian, (which seminary do you attend?) your post is, not to put too sharply of a point on it, patently ridiculous, for if we followed your reasoning, since most/all of your post are phrases and words not specifically found in the original Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, we must deny anything you write, say or teach because the phrases themselves are not exactly found in the Scriptures, and anything that you say which is not a direct quote from the original languages (or we could even grant an English text) is merely subjective inferences. G'day Epistemaniac, I agree entirely. I think the “the word trinity is found nowhere in the Bible” argument is manifestly the weakest one used against trinitarianism. If it were a valid objection then we should also immediately jettison the biblical concept of 'theocracy' on account of a descriptive title being absent in the biblical text, even though Israel was one! BTW, I hope you are well. I have been thinking about often and praying for you. Blessings

thanks for your prayers Isa 1:18!!

and thanks for the welcome back Nick, yep… I would say that going to the hospital in indescribable pain is not a recommended form of entertainment these sorts of trials make me not cling too tightly to this world, and that is a good thing….. I am looking forward to the ultimate healing!

blessings

[seminarian]

Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,00:56)

We do not reject the Trinity doctrine because the word 'Trinity' is not in the bible, but because this doctrine is not taught by anyone in the bible. That is the reason, plain and simple. The Trinity was never believed by early Christians if we use the bible as our guide as to what they believed. But pagan religions did and still have a place for trinities. So what are we to conclude?

Epsteinmanic, (telling username),

Criticizing me makes no points in proving the trinity doctrine is scriptural. Not only does the word trinity NOT appear in the Bible but neither does triune nor the title “God the Son”. What other doctrines do you believe that are not in the Bible?

If such words or titles are not found in God's Word, it is in fact infantile to accept them on blind faith. Do some serious reading and you will find people with advanced theological degrees agree with those who see the trinity doctrine for what it is. Nonsense. Read this:

HASTINGS DICTIONARY: “HASTINGS Dictionary of the Bible by Schribners, on page 1015 under the topic: “THE TRINITY–The Christian doctrine of God as existing in three Persons & one Substance is NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC OR BY SCRIPTURAL PROOFS…”

According to Mr. Hastings, one would have to use ILLOGICAL AND UNSCRIPTURAL data in order to prove a trinity.

Don't worry about what seminary I attend. I have two post graduate degrees but one does not need a theological diploma to answer these two simple questions from the Bible:

1.) Does our Lord Jesus have a God?

2.) Does God the Father have a god?

Remember, the answers must be from the Bible itself, not some other extra-Biblical doctrines.

Have at it!

Semmy

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Back to Ps 89
My humble offerings for your perusal:
“Ps 89
“1I will (A)sing of the lovingkindness of the LORD forever;
To all generations I will (B)make known Your ©faithfulness with my mouth.
2For I have said, “(D)Lovingkindness will be built up forever;
In the heavens You will establish Your (E)faithfulness.”
3″I have made a covenant with (F)My chosen;
I have (G)sworn to David My servant,4I will establish your (H)seed forever
And build up your (I)throne to all generations.” Selah “

So following the spoken worship of God Himself, the Son appears in the promise made to David's seed. No confusion there. Jesus is not that God.

“5The (J)heavens will praise Your wonders, O LORD;
Your faithfulness also (K)in the assembly of the (L)holy ones.
6For (M)who in the skies is comparable to the LORD?
Who among the (N)sons of the mighty is like the LORD,
7A God (O)greatly feared in the council of the (P)holy ones,
And (Q)awesome above all those who are around Him?
😯 LORD God of hosts, ®who is like You, O mighty LORD?
Your faithfulness also surrounds You.
9You rule the swelling of the sea;
When its waves rise, You (S)still them.
10You Yourself crushed (T)Rahab like one who is slain;
You (U)scattered Your enemies with Your mighty arm.
11The (V)heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours;
The (W)world and [a]all it contains, You have founded them.
12The (X)north and the south, You have created them;
(Y)Tabor and (Z)Hermon (AA)shout for joy at Your name”

The psalmist returns to the praise and exaltation of God Himself.The sons of God, who meet with God as shown in Job 1-2,38, including the son of God I would expect, are said not to compare with Him who is the Most High God.

“13You have a strong arm;
Your hand is mighty, Your (AB)right hand is exalted.
14(AC)Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
(AD)Lovingkindness and truth go before You.
15How blessed are the people who know the (AE)joyful sound!
O LORD, they walk in the (AF)light of Your countenance.
16In (AG)Your name they rejoice all the day,
And by Your righteousness they are exalted.
17For You are the glory of (AH)their strength,
And by Your favor our (AI)horn is exalted.
18For our (AJ)shield belongs to the LORD,

The work of God's Spirit in his Son and the human sons of God is shown to be from God.

“19Once You spoke in vision to Your godly ones,
And said, “I have given help to one who is (AL)mighty;
I have exalted one (AM)chosen from the people.
20″I have (AN)found David My servant;
With My holy (AO)oil I have anointed him,
21With whom (AP)My hand will be established;
My arm also will (AQ)strengthen him.
22″The enemy will not [d]deceive him,
Nor the (AR)son of wickedness afflict him.
23″But I shall (AS)crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.
24″My (AT)faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his (AU)horn will be exalted.
25″I shall also set his hand (AV)on the sea
And his right hand on the rivers.
26″He will cry to Me, 'You are (AW)my Father,
My God, and the (AX)rock of my salvation.'
27″I also shall make him My (AY)firstborn,
The (AZ)highest of the kings of the earth.
28″My (BA)lovingkindness I will keep for him forever,
And My (BB)covenant shall be confirmed to him.
29″So I will establish his (BC)descendants forever
And his (BD)throne (BE)as the days of heaven. “

Now the reign of Jesus is shown.

“
30″If his sons (BF)forsake My law
And do not walk in My judgments,
31If they [e]violate My statutes
And do not keep My commandments,
32Then I will punish their transgression with the (BG)rod
And their iniquity with stripes.
33″But I will not break off (BH)My lovingkindness from him,
Nor deal falsely in My faithfulness.
34″My (BI)covenant I will not violate,
Nor will I (BJ)alter the utterance of My lips.
35″[f]Once I have (BK)sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David.
36″His (BL)descendants shall endure forever”

And the Father's dealings with those in Christ is shown

37″It shall be established forever (BO)like the moon,
And the (BP)witness in the sky is faithful.” Selah.”

Perhaps a reference to the two witnesses of Revelation??

“
38But You have (BQ)cast off and (BR)rejected,
You have been full of wrath against Your (BS)anointed.
39You have (BT)spurned the covenant of Your servant;
You have (BU)profaned (BV)his crown in the dust.
40You have (BW)broken down all his walls;
You have (BX)brought his strongholds to ruin.
41(BY)All who pass along the way plunder him;
He has become a (BZ)reproach to his neighbors.
42You have (CA)exalted the right hand of his adversaries;
You have (CB)made all his enemies rejoice.
43You also turn back the edge of his sword
And have (CC)not made him stand in battle.
44You have made his (CD)splendor to cease
And cast his throne to the ground.
45You have (CE)shortened the days of his youth;
You have (CF)covered him with shame. Selah. “

The Messiah's difficulties are shown and his role as scapegoat for the sin of men.

“46(CG)How long, O LORD?
Will You hide Yourself forever?
Will Your (CH)wrath burn like fire?
47(CI)Remember what my span of life is;
For what (CJ)vanity You have created all the sons of men!
48What man can live and not (CK)see death?
Can he (CL)deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah.
49Where are Your former lovingkindnesses, O Lord,
Which You (CM)swore to David in Your faithfulness?
50Remember, O Lord, the (CN)reproach of Your servants;
How I bear in my bosom the reproach of all the many peoples,
51With which (CO)Your enemies have reproached, O LORD,
With which they have reproached the footsteps of (CP)Your anointed.
52(CQ)Blessed be the LORD forever!
Amen and Amen.”
But the suffering servant will be glorified and raised from the dead by the power of his Father God.

None of the fantasies of coequal trinity in this glorious relationship shown here.

[NickHassan]

Hi heiscomingintheclouds,
Is 1.18 has conceded that he has an open mind about trinity and only holds it to the degree that it makes best scriptural sense to him as of now. He has said he respects your views and has invited you to put on paper your thoughts on this matter so that he can learn from you. Would you accept this challenge?

[Cubes]

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 21 2006,00:56)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 20 2006,10:27) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,00:52) seminarian, (which seminary do you attend?) your post is, not to put too sharply of a point on it, patently ridiculous, for if we followed your reasoning, since most/all of your post are phrases and words not specifically found in the original Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, we must deny anything you write, say or teach because the phrases themselves are not exactly found in the Scriptures, and anything that you say which is not a direct quote from the original languages (or we could even grant an English text) is merely subjective inferences. G'day Epistemaniac, I agree entirely. I think the “the word trinity is found nowhere in the Bible” argument is manifestly the weakest one used against trinitarianism. If it were a valid objection then we should also immediately jettison the biblical concept of 'theocracy' on account of a descriptive title being absent in the biblical text, even though Israel was one! BTW, I hope you are well. I have been thinking about often and praying for you. Blessings thanks for your prayers Isa 1:18!!     and thanks for the welcome back Nick, yep… I would say that going to the hospital in indescribable pain is not a recommended form of entertainment these sorts of trials  make me not cling too tightly to this world, and that is a good thing….. I am looking forward to the ultimate healing! blessings

Hi E,

Sorry to hear you've been ill.  We pray God for your recovery in the name of Jesus Christ, his son.

Be well in the name of Jesus.

[Cubes]

For the rest, t8 and Semmy are right, we do not reject the Trinity on account of its lack of mention in the holy scriptures but rather on the basis of the holy scriptures' total lack of recognition or acknowledgment of that doctrine.

Tell us, Trinitarians, how Luke for example, acknowledges a Trinity?  Where in his gospel does he do it?  How about Acts?  We can examine the books in the NT from this approach if you are up for it.  Confine our readings to a book/Epistle of the scriptures at a time, and keep it to a standard page out of consideration to all.  What do you all say, Trinitarians?  It's about time. It may require a new thread.

[Proclaimer]

Sounds good to me Cubes, (even though I am not a trinitarian). We could start with the first book in the NT for example. Surely if the doctrine were true, there would be plenty of references to the concept of the Trinity.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 21 2006,00:03)

Hi e, Your words; “, its too bad the Arians are this way isn’t it? The Arians go about calling biblical doctrines the same things as the secular and atheistic philosophers called Paul's teaching!” But Paul did not teach trinity. So what gives?

Good point Nick.

[Proclaimer]

When Peter said to Jesus, “you are the messiah, the son of God, Jesus decided to build his Church on this rock.

If Peter said “You are God” and then all these denominations built on that, then I would understand that to a degree, although the denominational concept is still a dodgy one. But the declaration was that he was the messiah and the son of God.

Why do we need more than scripture, such as the creeds of men and the wisdom of the Greeks?

If scripture is not good enough for a person then surely it is the person that lacks, not the scripture.

[seminarian]

Quote (t8 @ July 21 2006,13:18)

When Peter said to Jesus, “you are the messiah, the son of God, Jesus decided to build his Church on this rock. If Peter said “You are God” and then all these denominations built on that, then I would understand that to a degree, although the denominational concept is still a dodgy one. But the declaration was that he was the messiah and the son of God. Why do we need more than scripture, such as the creeds of men and the wisdom of the Greeks? If scripture is not good enough for a person then surely it is the person that lacks, not the scripture.

Hey T8, Nick & Cubes,

You know T8, I discussed this same scripture with the pastor of education.  I told him, “Peter said Jesus was the SON OF GOD, the Messiah and the Lord said that he was blessed and that revelation was from his Father in Heaven.”  This would have been a perfect opportunity for Christ to say, “Oh now wait a minute Peter, I'm actually God in human flesh!” or something along that order to support the trinity doctrine.  It didn't happen like that though.

When I told the pastor of education this, he recited what Peter stated but it was as if he was blind to what was actually being said. It was really scarry that someone could be THAT deceived.

This scripture below sums up what the first century church believed as to who is God and who is the Lord:

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. [1 Corinthians 8:6]

There is a clear distinction being made in this scripture.  To declare Christ is the Father or equal to his Father is to deny his Lordship. Lord, (kurios) does not mean not God, (Theos).

That's why Epsteinmaniac and other trinitarians still haven't answered my two questions.

1.)  Does the Lord Jesus have a God?

2.)  Does God the Father have a god?

They know if they do answer these questions from the Bible, the trinity doctrine will be exposed for the lie it is.  That's why they keep going outside the Bible.  One lie begets another to explain the first such as the “dual nature of Christ” and other nonsense.  More lies to cover over the first.

Back to classes now…

Semmy

[Cubes]

Quote (t8 @ July 21 2006,18:07)

Sounds good to me Cubes, (even though I am not a trinitarian). We could start with the first book in the NT for example. Surely if the doctrine were true, there would be plenty of references to the concept of the Trinity.

Hi t8 and everybody,

Well, let's get started then with Matthew and post as each individual's schedule permits.  It would require reading and/or listening to the whole gospel of Matthew anew.  What did Matthew believe and preach?

Let Trinitarians bring to the table, the scriptures as they feel support their doctrine, and by the grace of God and spirit of truth, we'll do the same showing that God is the true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; that Christ is his Christ and not himself in substance, being, entity, equality or any of those things as express a God/god comprising of more persons than himself.  We'll try not to post the entire bible in so doing, at least not at once!.  

The goal is to determine what Matthew believed, for instance.

Scripture would be used ultimately to interpret scripture, though lexicons and even a dictionary to interpret words of a lexicon are permissible but the final interpretation would be by scripture.  Such scripture can be taken from Genesis thru' Revelation.  

These are my suggestions open for consideration and I welcome yours.  Please see the new thread under Scripture & Doctrine, i.e. Biblical Doctrine.  May be moved as you deem best.

Precept upon precept.  Line upon line.

Blessings

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,11:14)

That part is missing the article. Men are gods doesn't have the article either, so it cannot be used to say that man is God for that reason. But the other instances of God and Word have the article in John 1:1, except the last instance that you quoted. The article is used to define a person (identity), that is why the Logos has an article. This shows that the verse is not talking about an attribute. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and the Word was God. the article (the) shows identity lack of an article shows an attribute such as nature or character. Another example: Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So Judas was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. This is an example of how John 1:1c is constructed.

t8,
We've actually been though this, but evidently you have forgotten – must be that famously bad memory of your's coming to the fore again:

You wrote:
“The article is used to define a person (identity), that is why the Logos has an article. This shows that the verse is not talking about an attribute.

the article (the) shows identity
lack of an article shows an attribute such as nature or character.”

Not according to Colwell:

“…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or So it’s abundantly obvious that the absence of the definite article can not be used as lexical proof that the noun is ‘indefinite’ in reference to Jesus in John 1:1c. 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.

In koine Greek the article is used differently than it is in modern English t8. It's true that the primary purpose is to identify. But, its also true that if no article is used, it does NOT AT ALL denote that identity is not the focus. And there is a very good grammatical reason why John could NOT have legitimately used an article here.

John 1:1c is a predicate nominative construction. An English equivalent example of this might be: “John is the butcher.” In Greek, if you put the article before both “John” and “butcher,” then the statement would have to be fully reversible (unlike English, word order is insignificant in Greek, except for emphasis). So in the above example the statement would read both ways, “John is the butcher,” and “the butcher is John.” This would mean that all butchers are named John, which is clearly ludicrous.

Question:  How then in the Greek do you make it clear that you only intend it to go one way?

Answer: By NOT including the article.

Here are some excerpts of biblical verses where the subject is made plain by the article and the predicate without it:

John 4:24
“God is spirit” – pneuma ho theos

“Pneuma ho theos” can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” John uses a predicate nominative to avoid the possibility of this being misconstrued.

1 John 4:16
God is love –  ho theos agape estin

Same deal as above.

John 1:14
the Word became flesh – ho Logos sarx egeneto, “

John 1:14 is the same construction, only the word is the subject. It would be unintelligible had this read “Flesh became the Word”.

So can you see where this is leading t8?…..

Since an article with “theos” in John 1:1c would have forced a fully reversible statement (Jesus is God AND God is Jesus) we know that John could NOT have legitimately used the article without affirming Sabellianism (or modalism)! But by placing the term “theos” in the emphatic position and dropping the article John deliberately avoids evoking the impression of ontological subordinationism and at the same time avoids making “logos” and the “theos” of John 1:1 the same person (subject).

On this Mantley wrote:

“If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1, the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that “the Word was with (the) God” (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing, he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities….”

So John, in all likelihood, may have intended identity without an article, and it is perfectly grammatically-valid to do this. In fact it is quite common in koine Greek.

If “theos” does not have an article, it can and often does still mean “God,” not “a god”, Consider these verse from the very same Chapter in John:

John 1:6
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.

No one would argue that this is not a reference to the Father – but where is the article?

John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

No article here either.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Or here…….

In fact t8 if you bothered to compared the frequency of instances in the NT where writers use “theos” in reference to the Father WITHOUT the definite article to the number of instances where the article IS USED, you will find that MOST of the time it isn't – in fact over 90%. So your statement “the article (the) shows identity lack of an article shows an attribute such as nature or character.” is shown to be patently untrue on those grounds.

It's also worth noting that:

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,11:30)

God is divine. His nature is divinity. The son comes from God. He has his nature, not his identity.

Hi t8,
Your premise rests on the assumption that the Logos is the progeny of God, that God somehow birthed Him 'in the beginning'. The problem I have with that is that nowhere in scripture is this described. If you disagree then you must please produce some scriptural evidence attesting to this pre-incarnation begettal. Can you do this?

Another thing. I don't think identity and nature are mutually exclusive as you would have everyone believe, and this principle that you have formulated is actually self serving. Conversely, I think that nature and identity are irrevocably interlinked. Using me and my son as an example (and I use an anthropic-themed analogy to be consistent with what you continually teach, i.e that Jesus is the son of God in the same sense that humans are); I share the same nature and identity as my son in that we both have human nature and are human in identity, i.e the identity of our being is human. There are no humans without human nature, and human nature (in the truest sense) is intrinsic to humans. And so it is with Jesus – that is why Paul, in Colossian 2:9, wrote “For in Him all the fullness of Deity (Gr. Theotes) dwells in bodily form.”

Theotes is used in this verse as an abstract noun to refer to ‘divine essence’ or simply put the essence of what makes God….well….God!

Thayer’s lexicon defines theotes as the “state of being God”. (Source)

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words records this:

”…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties. (Source)

Yahshua has divine nature because He is God – in nature and identity. It's cut and dry.

I should also clarify that in the context of the trinity argument, identity (as it is contested) is not a function of personhood, but ontology. Trinitarians do not affirm that the Father and Son are the same person, so let's not go there again….

Edited for clarity…again

[david]

Quote

“…predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite or So it’s abundantly obvious that the absence of the definite article can not be used as lexical proof that the noun is ‘indefinite’ in reference to Jesus in John 1:1c. 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.

So, Is, it all comes down to context, doesn't it? And how we look at context seems to be determined by our beliefs.
“only if this is demanded by the context.” Sure ya.
“and in the case of John 1:1c this is not so.” Well, in his mind and the mind of all trinitarians.

But for someone who wasn't already conditioned to believe in a trinity, the context doesn't really allow it. Normal every day logic doesn't allow it.

Of course, after the quote above, I'm sure you went on to say many very intelligent things and use rather large words which make you appear to know what you're talking about. I wouldn't really know. I didn't read it as I'm far too tired.

[Is 1:18]

Hi David,
Good to hear from you. Just to clarify things for you, my comments were in response to these statements by t8:

Quote

That part is missing the article. Men are gods doesn't have the article either, so it cannot be used to say that man is God for that reason. But the other instances of God and Word have the article in John 1:1, except the last instance that you quoted. The article is used to define a person (identity), that is why the Logos has an article. This shows that the verse is not talking about an attribute. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and the Word was God. the article (the) shows identity lack of an article shows an attribute such as nature or character. Another example: Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he has the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek, but most translators deem it necessary to add the “a” to complete the thought. So Judas was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. This is an example of how John 1:1c is constructed.

The point I was trying to make was that you cannot dogmatically assert, by appealing to the grammer of John 1:1c, that a indefinite or qualitative conveyance was intended by John. The very plain and irrefutable reasons why this is untrue were outlined in my post, AND previous ones I have made, including some directed to him (and responded to). T8 has already been set straight on this issue more than once but continues to write deliberately-misleading statements to defend his position….this is shameful. He knows the truth and continues to lie.

BTW, I agree it that it does come down to context – that's why I wrote this post:
Pg 293, Trinity Thread

Blessings David

PS – I asked you a question on pg 11 of the A DEFENSE OF KING JAMES VI & I thread, did you see it?

[Author]

Posts