The Trinity Doctrine

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Your quote
” 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.”

So IN the Son dwelled something?
I can agree with that.
God dwelled in Him.

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” 2Cor5

This something lights up his being and without it he would not be uplit? True
So the Son himself is not that which dwells in him and gilded him? True 

Now if this was for a “season” what season was he uplit for?
Was he still “absolute and perfect God” when he was not uplit for that season?
If he was not then what nature did he have outside of that “season”?

So there was also a time when he was not so uplit? Yes before Jordan.
Certainly it must not be if this splendour was “not his own”- and it was not if it was of the Father. He was a vessel for the awesomely powerful Spirit of God.

Well if it was the “fullness of Godhead” that uplit him for a season then this which dwelled in him and uplit him was the TRINITY ITSELF for that is how trinitarians describe God.

So was one person in the trinity
indwelled
and uplit
by all three persons of that trinity
for a season?

Is there also a nonperfect and nonabsolute God?

This is so hard to grasp!
Do we need all these useless acoutrements to truth?

[Proclaimer]

Is 1:18,

I said a while back that I wasn't going to waste my time reading your posts. The posts I have read from you since then, have been short and my time was not wasted in replying you. I felt those replies would be in good service to those who read here. But the longer posts you have just made may be too time consuming to read and then reply to all that you have said. But I have speed read your post and it seems pretty much a repeat from other posts you have made (as you have said I think) so I will take it from there.

My reply to you regarding John 1:1 and the lack of the article in John 1:1c starts with reading John 1:1:

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with the God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

If we add the article to John 1:1c it would actually be saying that Jesus (Word) was God to the exclusion of the Father. So it cannot be saying that the Word is actually God himself.

John 1:1b even says the Word was with the God, so it is quite simple really. He was next to God.

Also both b) & c) in English are very similar except b) has one extra word “with” and c) lacks the article. So why does one have the article and not the other when they are similarly constructed?

But lets look at it this simply. Which one of these 2 examples is correct?

a) In the beginning was the woman, b) and the woman was with the man c) and the woman was the man

a) In the beginning was the woman, b) and the woman was with the man c) and the woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or that the woman is a man in the sense that God made man, male and female

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In other words the word 'man' is used as an attribute or to describe one's nature. It is not used in an identity sense like the other instances of the words woman and man.

The first example is wrong because adding the article means that the woman is the man in identity and not nature. It means that the woman is actually the man himself or that Eve is Adam. So then we are left with “Who is Adam” if Eve is the Man? In other words confusion. But we could go further and excuse this confusion by saying that Man is beyond our understanding so it is no wonder it seems confusing.

Now if we were to actually believe the first example, we would know that it was kind of rediculous, but to make it sound feasible we could invent a doctrine to explain this stupidity. Lets call it the Doctrine of the Triune Man.

Adam is Man, the Eve is Man and the Spirit of man is Man.
Hence Adam is the man, Eve is the Man, and the spirit of Man is the Man.
They are three, but they make up one Man (one being). Each is co-equal and co-created.

Is it starting to sound familiar now?

One last thing. In reality we can refer to Adam as both THE man and man. This answers your statement about God not always having the article.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 22 2006,20:27)

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?

The Logos was WITH God.

[Cubes]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 22 2006,06:27)

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?

Hi Is:

If we agree that in Genesis, GOD spoke (Word) all creation into existence, so that the world as scritpure teaches was created by GOD thru the word (Jesus).

Now if you argue that the Word was GOD, and then was MADE flesh (by whom?), then are you not saying that the creator became the creature?  At that point, things are up for graps, whoever can get there first no?  And then the Word and Creator died, leaving the creatures alive!  Then somehow, he brought himself back to life…!  

This doesn't blend with scripture.

The word is a different entity, and not the Creator himself but subject to the creator.  That's how the creator could send it (him) to accomplish that which he desires, whether it be to make the world through him, have him dwell among the rest of his creation, desire that for the sake of the rest of his creation he succumb innocently to death, raise him from the dead and glorify him as he sees fit, that clearly and majestically reveals the Creator to be the Highest and together with the Word, we worship and glorify him as the only true GOD.

This exercise reveals that the Word cannot be the Creator, but rather an instrument of the Creator.

The testimony of the prophets, apostles and the Christ:

Mar 12:26   “But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the {passage} about {the burning} bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, and the God of Jacob'?

Mar 12:27   “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.”

[NickHassan]

Hi,
We do know from Ps 89.6 that there are SONS of the Mighty and there is a council of the Holy Ones. We see these sons meeting with the Lord God in Job 1.6

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord..”
and Job 2.1
“Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord..”

So we know the Lord God has His throne in heaven so thus there are more than one such Son in heaven with God. We see God speaking of “us” in Genesis.

We know they meet with God and form a council of the Holy Ones so from that we can deduce that they are not one in being with him but have life in themselves such that they can come and meet with God.

There is no reason to believe The Son of God was different in these ways from the other sons and always conjoined with the Father though he was as firstborn Son greater than them, the beloved and only begotten Son, or 'only begotten god'[Jn 1.18]

Since he was involved in all creation the other sons were created through him too and they are seen existing before the world was created in Job 38.

I believe the begetting of the Word is recorded in scripture in Psalm 2 which Paul loves and quotes frequently. We know from 1 Jn that the Son was sent into the world so he was a son in heaven whence he came.

Paul made no effort to convince men that this begettal in Ps 2 related to his conception in Mary and in Hebrews 1 it is shown just before the bringing of the firstborn Son into the world so unless God is a midwife it would seem best to relate to his origins in the beginning such that he could then be “with God”.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ July 22 2006,13:35)

If we add the article to John 1:1c it would actually be saying that Jesus (Word) was God to the exclusion of the Father. So it cannot be saying that the Word is actually God himself. John 1:1b even says the Word was with the God, so it is quite simple really. He was next to God. Also both b) & c) in English are very similar except b) has one extra word “with” and c) lacks the article. So why does one have the article and not the other when they are similarly constructed? Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. In other words the word 'man' is used as an attribute or to describe one's nature. It is not used in an identity sense like the other instances of the words woman and man. The first example is wrong because adding the article means that the woman is the man in identity and not nature. It means that the woman is actually the man himself or that Eve is Adam. So then we are left with “Who is Adam” if Eve is the Man? In other words confusion. But we could go further and excuse this confusion by saying that Man is beyond our understanding so it is no wonder it seems confusing. Now if we were to actually believe the first example, we would know that it was kind of rediculous, but to make it sound feasible we could invent a doctrine to explain this stupidity. Lets call it the Doctrine of the Triune Man. Adam is Man, the Eve is Man and the Spirit of man is Man. Hence Adam is the man, Eve is the Man, and the spirit of Man is the Man. They are three, but they make up one Man (one being). Each is co-equal and co-created. Is it starting to sound familiar now? One last thing. In reality we can refer to Adam as both THE man and man. This answers your statement about God not always having the article.

t8,
Here are the facts:

[Proclaimer]

To Is 1:18.

Quote

In KIONE GREEK, when you use an article with two nouns in a predicate nominative construction, you force a fully reversible statement. Had John done this in John 1:1c he would have affirmed modalism. This is why he could not have legitimately done this.

Your quote above doesn't disprove that “the Word was theos” is talking in a qualitive sense. Also the quote actually agrees with what I am saying. “If we read that the Word is God in the same way that God is used in John 1:1a & John 1:1b, then it says that Jesus (Word) is God to the exclusion of the Father. i.e., Logos was the God.

This is the point. The average Trinitarian reads the last word God in the same way they read the other instances of God in John 1:1. In that scenario the Logos is God though.

Quote

In KIONE GREEK, an anarthrous noun used in a predicate nominative construction in and of itself does not designate an indefinite or qualitative attribute. Several times in the NT the noun 'theos' is used without the article to denote the person of God the Father and the article is used with the noun 'theos' to identify the person of Yahshua. In none of these instance does the context indicate a qualitative conveyance.

Your quote above agrees with what I am saying. God the Father is the God (identity) and a god, and godly. Also when Jesus calls men 'theos', there is no preceeding article. So am I to assume that we are God then, you know the Most High? After all you seem to be promoting the idea that lack of the article before 'theos' also says that you are God (Almighty).

Quote

Your English-based examples are all very interesting and might be convincing to someone who has no clue about these things – but what it boils down to is straight deceit. The missing article itself is an irrelevancy. Also, if you are going to use a lexical argument to support your position on the rendering of John 1:1c, then you really must base it on Greek grammatical rules, not obfuscate and self-serving English ones.

The English examples are good and bring out the point that I am making. It shows the difference between identity and nature. Something you have failed to grasp in the past.

God is the head of Christ, who is the head of the man who is the head of the woman. So I have taken the logic of 2 different views of John 1:1 and applied the logic to the woman and the head of the woman, the man. This made the point clearer as you obviously understood what I said this time. That is the whole point when using a parable. Do you condemn Jesus for using parables?

Quote

When you declare or insinuate that the missing article in John 1:1c means that the noun logos must be interpreted as conveying an indefinite or qualitative attribute you are perpetuating an untruth. You are lying to people t8.

Woa hold on a minute here Is 1:18. That is a serious accusation and without realising it you have judged yourself.
Let's apply this accusation to your argument and point of view:

“When you declare or insinuate that the missing article in John 1:1c means that the noun logos must be interpreted as conveying a person and not in a qualitive sense you are perpetuating an untruth.”

So are you a liar Is 1:18? That is what your own judgement appears to be pointing too. I am not calling you are liar however, you appear to be calling yourself one though.

Now back to John 10:34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If you were a translator and you came to this verse, would you feel at liberty to add in the article before the word 'theos'. What do you think the effect on the meaning would be, if you did?

[Is 1:18]

Quote

In KIONE GREEK, when you use an article with two nouns in a predicate nominative construction, you force a fully reversible statement. Had John done this in John 1:1c he would have affirmed modalism. This is why he could not have legitimately done this. Your quote above doesn't disprove that “the Word was theos” is talking in a qualitive sense. Also the quote actually agrees with what I am saying. “If we read that the Word is God in the same way that God is used in John 1:1a & John 1:1b, then it says that Jesus (Word) is God to the exclusion of the Father. i.e., Logos was the God.

I wasn’t trying to “disprove that, based on the grammar, ‘theos’ in John 1:1c must be interpreted in the qualitative sense. And if had bothered to properly read my posts you would have known this. My point is that you cannot affirm, by direct assertion or inference, that the article with ‘theos’ always denotes ‘identity’ or, conversely, that the absence of the article always designates a qualitative or indefinite construal. The article is actually irrelevant to the correct rendering of the John 1:1c clause. In a predicate nominative construction the article does not dictate the interpretation of the noun, context does! That was Colwell’s whole point t8.

“…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.

Do you get it now? I hope so!!

Quote

This is the point. The average Trinitarian reads the last word God in the same way they read the other instances of God in John 1:1. In that scenario the Logos is God though

If by “in the same way they read the other instances of God in John 1:1” you mean 'identity', then the average English translator does too. Last time I checked John 1:1c 'theos' is capitalised in all 19 versions offered on BibleGateway.com and all 11 versions offered on Blueletterbible.org
This means that the absolute vast majority of (creditable) NT Greek translators agree that, based on the context of the prologue, identity was the intended conveyance of John when he penned John 1:1c. The Word was God.

Quote

In KIONE GREEK, an anarthrous noun used in a predicate nominative construction in and of itself does not designate an indefinite or qualitative attribute. Several times in the NT the noun 'theos' is used without the article to denote the person of God the Father and the article is used with the noun 'theos' to identify the person of Yahshua. In none of these instance does the context indicate a qualitative conveyance. Your quote above agrees with what I am saying. God the Father is the God (identity) and a god, and godly. Also when Jesus calls men 'theos', there is no preceeding article. So am I to assume that we are God then, you know the Most High? After all you seem to be promoting the idea that lack of the article before 'theos' also says that you are God (Almighty).

‘Identity’ can be conveyed with – or – without – the – article, t8. Patently. Read through the NT and tally how many times the anarthrous noun ‘theos’ is used to identify God……dozens and dozens of times. Likewise the article with the noun will also “identify’ the subject. It doesn't matter if the article is used or not – it amounts to the same.

In John 10:34 the context makes it plain that theos is indefinite, in that it does not convey 'quality of diety' nor does it 'identify God'. Jesus’ point in quoting Psa 82:6 to the Jews was that men are in fact called “gods” (Elohim) in their scripture, therefore the charges they were bringing against Him (vs 33) were rendered groundless on this technicality. They could not legally stone him for inferring he is something synonymous with what scripture ascribes to men. But when you actually read the Psalm itself in context it’s abundantly obvious that when elohim is used, it’s intended to convey irony, it's a not-uncommon hebraic literary device. The “men” of Psa 82:6 were in fact magistrates, “wicked judges” in Israel who will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”. Could it be more manifestly obvious that they were called “gods” in sarcasm, not because men are divine?

Quote

Your English-based examples are all very interesting and might be convincing to someone who has no clue about these things – but what it boils down to is straight deceit. The missing article itself is an irrelevancy. Also, if you are going to use a lexical argument to support your position on the rendering of John 1:1c, then you really must base it on Greek grammatical rules, not obfuscate and self-serving English ones. The English examples are good and bring out the point that I am making. It shows the difference between identity and nature. Something you have failed to grasp in the past. God is the head of Christ, who is the head of the man who is the head of the woman. So I have taken the logic of 2 different views of John 1:1 and applied the logic to the woman and the head of the woman, the man. This made the point clearer as you obviously understood what I said this time. That is the whole point when using a parable. Do you condemn Jesus for using parables?

It is perfectly okay to use English examples to elucidate a lexical point about a biblical passage, but the underlying principle you convey must align with the grammatical rules. of the language the passage was written in. You can’t rightly use an English linguistic example to make clear a Greek lexical point if it contradicts the very clear and precise laws governing the correct interpretation of Greek text. Do you see my point?

Quote

When you declare or insinuate that the missing article in John 1:1c means that the noun logos must be interpreted as conveying an indefinite or qualitative attribute you are perpetuating an untruth.You are lying to people t8. Woa hold on a minute here Is 1:18. That is a serious accusation and without realising it you have judged yourself. Let's apply this accusation to your argument and point of view:

You are right, it is a very serious accusation, and I don’t make it lightly. I certainly wouldn't do it if there was an element of ambiguity involved, but there isn’t – it's clear cut. You teach that the noun 'theos' in John 1:1c is denotative of quality not identity because the article is missing. This is not true. It's a watchtower lie that you have perpetuated for quite a while now, even when the error has been explained to you – many times over, and in detail. You indeed have been lying to people t8, the evidence speaks for itself. These are your words:

“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.”

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts…..

Quote

“When you declare or insinuate that the missing article in John 1:1c means that the noun logos must be interpreted as conveying a person and not in a qualitive sense you are perpetuating an untruth.” So are you a liar Is 1:18? That is what your own judgement appears to be pointing too. I am not calling you are liar however, you appear to be calling yourself one though.

IF I had made a statement like the one above you would have every reason to call me a liar, and a hypocrite to boot. But the fact is I have not affirmed this, and if you go back and re-read my last few posts and you will see that I'm right. My position is the same as Colwell’s:

““…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; but 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.

That is why I quoted him.

Quote

Now back to John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If you were a translator and you came to this verse, would you feel at liberty to add in the article before the word 'theos'. What do you think the effect on the meaning would be, if you did?

If I was a translator I would of course make a point of understanding Colwell’s Rule, and apply it rightly.

Blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Here are some views on Colwell's rule

“Colwell's rule and the “a god” rendering

Readers of this site might already be aware from what has been discussed regarding John 1:1c that this 'rule' is not valid here in determining the definiteness of the anarthrous QEOS of John 1:1. However, something should be said on it.

In 1933 E.C.Colwell published an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.52, p.20: “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament.” It came to known as 'Colwell's Rule.'

Since the 1st edition of the New World Translation appeared in 1950 many scholars and writers have appealed to this 'rule' in their attempt to invalidate the rendering as found there at John 1:1c.For instance:

Walter Martin wrote:

“Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative never takes the article when it precedes the verb as in John 1:1.”-Kingdom of the Cults, 1975, p75.

Bruce M. Metzger wrote:

“As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering[re”and the Word was a god” in the NWT]is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering “…and the Word was God.”-italics mine. (Metzger is referring to Colwell's rule as can be seen in his following comments and footnote.)

Walter Martin's statement is a complete distortion of Colwell!

Before stating that rule here, let it be understood that the NWT Translation Committee did not “overlook” this 'rule'. They believed that it simply did not apply here in John 1:1c. We will see who was right.The latter well known scholar or the NWT Translation Committe? Basically, Who has been proven correct?

Colwell's Rule is:

“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun despite the absence of the article.”

Colwell wrote also:

“The following rules may be tentatively formulated….definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article..”-Journal of Biblical Literature,Vol.52,1933,p.20.

A Watchtower magazine said about this:

“Perhaps you noticed this scholar's wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite “if the context suggests” that. Further along in his arguement Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position “only when the context demands it.” Nowhere did he state that all anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but context must guide the translator in such cases.”-1975, p.703

In agreement with this is what Murray J.Harris, already quoted, said:

“According, from the point of view of grammar alone,[theos en ho logos]could be rendered “the Word was a god.” This leads me to affirm that one may not infer(as is often done)from [Colwell's]rule 2b[in Colwell, JBL, 1933, Vol.53, pp.17-21]that anarthrous predicte nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative in emphasis.”

And, also:

“So that while the canon[Colwell's rule]may reflect a general tendency it is not absolute by any means; after all, it takes no account of relative clauses of proper nouns like that in[ho theos agape estin,”the God love is.” -1 John 4:8]. Moreover, he[Colwell]is the first to admit the lack of objectivity in his method of counting: he professes to include only definite nouns among his anarthrous predicates and the degree of definiteness is extremely difficult to assess”.-A Grammar of New Testament Greek, James Hope Moulton, Nigel Turner, Vol.III, Syntax, 1963, p.1.

So, definitness is not proven by this rule, it is assumed. However, the converse of Colwell's rule(2b)should not be assumed, as has been. The converse would not be that because a predicate noun precedes a copulative verb it cannot be indefinite.Those who wrote such strong language as cited above often used Colwell here as if it says that an anarthrous predicate nominate which precedes the verb could not be indefinite. This, the rule, did not say, nor may this be inferred from the rule. Harris has also said, “An anarthrous noun in the subject or predicate…may be either indefinite or definite, but the presumption ought to be that it is either (1)indefinite…, until it has been shown to be definite from the context…,(2)qualitative, whatever be it's state of definiteness.”- “The Definite Article in the Greek New Testament.” Appendix I, p.302 of “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus,” Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.

So, when you come across such strong language, as you found near the head of this page, from 'reputable' scholars in their severe criticism of the New World Translation's “and the Word was a god,” you would do well to take such with no more than a 'pinch of salt'!-Please see Dr Jason BeDuhn's remarks on such “strong language” by clicking here. Jason BeDuhn is in agreement with Stafford here:

“Stafford is quite right in saying that Colwell's rule is invalid. It simply does not withstand scrutiny, and has been abandoned by those who know their Greek. Harner's study correctly established what the Greeks are up to in constructions like that of John 1:1, namely,that they have a qualitative sense. Harner has trouble spelling out exactly how this should be conveyed in an English translation of John 1:1, perhaps because of his own religous commitments.”

John 1:1

[david]

Nick, just for clarity, what are you saying regarding John 1:1 in the NWT?

Quote

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

No Isaiah 1:18, I didn't. I've been away from my computer for a while. I'll go check it.

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
I have not expressed any opinion nor have I fully read the article or agreed with it but posted it to enlarge our viewpoint on Colwell and his rule.

[WhatIsTrue]

epistemaniac (and other trinitarians),

As promised, here is my “thought”.  I'm going to post it in the form of an essay of sorts so that I can reuse it as needed at a later date, but these are my own words, not a “cut and paste” post.  Also, note that I will use the terms “God”, “Jesus”, and “Jehovah” though I personally prefer the terms “Elohim”, “Y’shua”, and “YHWH”.

Here it is:

Quote

“As Touching His Human Nature” To debate a Trinitarian on the nature and identity of the God of the universe is to enter into a contest with someone who will change the rules of the game to his advantage at every turn.  The debate itself is nearly two thousand years old and the only decisive winner has been the Roman Catholic Church.  To wit, every orthodox Christian church, to this very day, still borrows heavily from the Catholic tradition.  They follow her holy days, (which themselves are relics of a pagan tradition nowhere affirmed in scripture), and they stand on her most fundamental doctrine – the doctrine whose ultimate confirmation came from the corrupted power structure of Rome. To be certain, the doctrine of the Trinity has been refined by constant criticism and has evolved over time into a self-sustaining force with enough circumstantial logic and circular reasoning to keep some of the brightest theological minds eternally confused.  There is no angle that has not been previously discussed, and no scripture left that has not been properly twisted into compliance.  It is a well honed doctrinal machine that has whole libraries full of explanations awaiting its defense.  But, when one looks at two crucial events in history side by side, the duplicitous nature of Trinitarian logic is made plain. The first of these two events is creation.  In this one event, we have the best of Trinitarian logic displayed in all its glory.  For, in it, the Creator declares that He works alone, (Isaiah 44:24), yet, according to the doctrine, all three persons of the trinity are implicated in this act.  So, here we have the Creator of the universe referring to Himself in a very singular fashion, using singular pronouns and verb tenses in a way that any plain reading of the text would indicate a single person, yet by misunderstanding or mistranslating a handful of New Testament verses, this solo act becomes a three person show to Trinitarians.  Why?  Because, according to Trinitarians, God is a three person being, so even if He does something alone, it can, and usually does, involve all three persons.  After all, according to one Trinitarian writer, the Almighty is a “single divine essence” consisting of “three individual subsistences that we call persons”.  How then could these “persons” not be entangled in each others work? But, when we come to the crucifixion, the second of the two events, the Trinitarian logic begins to break down.  The following question illustrates the problem: Who died on the cross?  Jesus only, or Jehovah? Here, the Trinitarian faces a divine conundrum.  To say that Jehovah died on the cross is to suggest that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit took part in this singular act, but to say that only Jesus died on the cross is to not only affirm his individual personhood but also to affirm him as a separate being from the Father and Holy Spirit – a being who could be killed while the other two remained alive, (thereby reducing the trinity to a “binity”, even if only for three days and three nights).  One can not say that only part of Jehovah died, for, according to the doctrine, Jehovah is one “single divine essence”.  It is an all or nothing prospect.  Worse, to acknowledge that Jesus was separated from the other two in death, (Matthew 27:46), is to say that Jesus is a distinct being from the ever living Jehovah and therefore not Jehovah at all! But, that is when the rules of the game must be changed by the Trinitarian.  Since the normal doctrinal constructs fail miserably in this scenario, a logical escape hatch must be formulated to get the Trinitarian out of this scriptural trap.  That is when the Trinitarian will utter something along the lines of the following words: “As touching his human nature… .” The rest of the statement is inconsequential, for by use of this phrase, the Trinitarian has managed to reconstruct Jesus into a being of two completely separable parts – one part God being, the other part human being – where the things that happen to the one half do not happen to the other.  The trick here is that, though the doctrine says that Jesus is fully God and fully man all the time, this sleight of hand phrase gets you to focus on one half of his person to the exclusion of the other.  But, again, that is not what the doctrine states.  Either Jesus is fully God, all the time, from eternity to eternity, or he is not God at all.  So you can not separate out his human side and say that that side of him alone died on the cross, (i.e. Jesus only died on the cross).  Either the whole person of Jesus died that day, (i.e. Jehovah died on the cross), or the whole person of Jesus did not die at all.  Well, at this point, the Trinitarian is likely to cry, “Mystery!”, and change the subject. What is the last refuge of a Trinitarian?  What is the subject to which he will gravitate when all else fails?  Ontology, (background information)!  With its origins firmly rooted in Greek philosophy – not in scripture – ontology is nothing more than a way of neatly categorizing everything that exists in the universe.  The methods and the rules come from philosophers, not from the Almighty, and the application of various ontological constructs on scripture is simply confusing unless it is done selectively and circumstantially by a skilled Trinitarian. According to the ontological constructs of a Trinitarian, God is a type of being made up of three persons.  So, regardless of any evidence that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Son is still said to be God because that is the type of being that he is.  For example, my child may be subordinate to me, but that does not make him any less a human being.  Unfortunately, Trinitarians tie a neat little bow on the story here and present it as though they are handing you the gift of all-surpassing wisdom.  After all, who can argue with this airtight circular logic?  Dig a little deeper, however, and the ontological argument immediately falls to pieces. First, recall that, according to the trinity doctrine, Jesus is both a God being and a human being.  Therefore, he is not just one of three persons in one being.  He is one person in two beings – a God being and a human being!  The “Godhead” then becomes three persons in two beings, or, at the very least, two persons in one being and one person in two beings.  But, it doesn’t end there.  By far, the vast majority of Trinitarians claim that the Angel of the LORD, (who makes many appearances in the Old Testament), was Jehovah Himself, likely a “pre-incarnation” form of Jesus, and angels, by ontological construct, are a third type of being altogether.  That turns the “Godhead” into three persons in three beings – God being, angel being, and human being – or two persons in one being and one person in three beings, or two persons in two beings and one person three beings, etc.!  Alternatively, as with the question of the cross, Trinitarians must split Jesus down the middle again and say that the God being part of Jesus belongs to the trinity and the human being part of Jesus is a distinct and separate being of his own, leaving us with the trinity and Jesus the human being existing separately, even if cooperatively.  Clearly, trying to paint a tidy little pi cture of Jesus, or the trinity, through ontology does not work. So what is at the root of all this tortured logic and philosophical gymnastics?  Quite simply, It is the desire of the Trinitarian to forge the three gods of his doctrine into one single god.  In their attempts to elevate Jesus to the same level as the God that he serves, (Revelations 3:12), they have created an unworkable dilemma that scripture presents them at every turn.  God is one, (Deuteronomy 6:4), yet the Father and Son make two, (John 8:17-18).  Try as they might, they simply can not get around this divinely placed hole in their doctrine.  For, when one looks to the cross and the glorious resurrection that followed, one can clearly see the work of two distinct, separable beings: one who died and rose again, and One who can never die, but grants life to all who live.  Trinitarians are eternally trying to fill in the gap between these two very different beings.

To be clear, the thought to which I would love to see a response is the question:

Who died on the cross?  Jesus only or Jehovah?

Thanks!

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
Thanks for stepping out of the shadows once again.
You quote Isaiah 44

“24Thus says the LORD, your (A)Redeemer, and the one who (B)formed you from the womb,
“I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
ÂStretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,”

Does this verse proclaiming the ownership of creation preclude God from any form of delegation of His work in your view, or does it allow it?

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
Epistemaniac is correct when he says Christ can be seen in two lights.
Rom 1.1-4
“1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, (A)called as an apostle, (B)set apart for Âthe gospel of God,
2which He (D)promised beforehand through His (E)prophets in the holy Scriptures,

3concerning His Son, who was born (F)of a descendant of David (G)according to the flesh,

4who was declared (H)the Son of God with power [a]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,”
See also 2 Cor 5.16.and Phil 2
Christ “existed in the form of God” and partook of our flesh nature.

His flesh died on Calvary and his spirit departed as is the way of all flesh, but like Abraham he lives.

[Cubes]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 28 2006,03:28)

epistemaniac (and other trinitarians), As promised, here is my “thought”.  I'm going to post it in the form of an essay of sorts so that I can reuse it as needed at a later date, but these are my own words, not a “cut and paste” post.  Also, note that I will use the terms “God”, “Jesus”, and “Jehovah” though I personally prefer the terms “Elohim”, “Y’shua”, and “YHWH”. Here it is: Quote “As Touching His Human Nature” To debate a Trinitarian on the nature and identity of the God of the universe is to enter into a contest with someone who will change the rules of the game to his advantage at every turn.  The debate itself is nearly two thousand years old and the only decisive winner has been the Roman Catholic Church.  To wit, every orthodox Christian church, to this very day, still borrows heavily from the Catholic tradition.  They follow her holy days, (which themselves are relics of a pagan tradition nowhere affirmed in scripture), and they stand on her most fundamental doctrine – the doctrine whose ultimate confirmation came from the corrupted power structure of Rome. To be certain, the doctrine of the Trinity has been refined by constant criticism and has evolved over time into a self-sustaining force with enough circumstantial logic and circular reasoning to keep some of the brightest theological minds eternally confused.  There is no angle that has not been previously discussed, and no scripture left that has not been properly twisted into compliance.  It is a well honed doctrinal machine that has whole libraries full of explanations awaiting its defense.  But, when one looks at two crucial events in history side by side, the duplicitous nature of Trinitarian logic is made plain. The first of these two events is creation.  In this one event, we have the best of Trinitarian logic displayed in all its glory.  For, in it, the Creator declares that He works alone, (Isaiah 44:24), yet, according to the doctrine, all three persons of the trinity are implicated in this act.  So, here we have the Creator of the universe referring to Himself in a very singular fashion, using singular pronouns and verb tenses in a way that any plain reading of the text would indicate a single person, yet by misunderstanding or mistranslating a handful of New Testament verses, this solo act becomes a three person show to Trinitarians.  Why?  Because, according to Trinitarians, God is a three person being, so even if He does something alone, it can, and usually does, involve all three persons.  After all, according to one Trinitarian writer, the Almighty is a “single divine essence” consisting of “three individual subsistences that we call persons”.  How then could these “persons” not be entangled in each others work? But, when we come to the crucifixion, the second of the two events, the Trinitarian logic begins to break down.  The following question illustrates the problem: Who died on the cross?  Jesus only, or Jehovah? Here, the Trinitarian faces a divine conundrum.  To say that Jehovah died on the cross is to suggest that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit took part in this singular act, but to say that only Jesus died on the cross is to not only affirm his individual personhood but also to affirm him as a separate being from the Father and Holy Spirit – a being who could be killed while the other two remained alive, (thereby reducing the trinity to a “binity”, even if only for three days and three nights).  One can not say that only part of Jehovah died, for, according to the doctrine, Jehovah is one “single divine essence”.  It is an all or nothing prospect.  Worse, to acknowledge that Jesus was separated from the other two in death, (Matthew 27:46), is to say that Jesus is a distinct being from the ever living Jehovah and therefore not Jehovah at all! But, that is when the rules of the game must be changed by the Trinitarian.  Since the normal doctrinal constructs fail miserably in this scenario, a logical escape hatch must be formulated to get the Trinitarian out of this scriptural trap.  That is when the Trinitarian will utter something along the lines of the following words: “As touching his human nature… .” The rest of the statement is inconsequential, for by use of this phrase, the Trinitarian has managed to reconstruct Jesus into a being of two completely separable parts – one part God being, the other part human being – where the things that happen to the one half do not happen to the other.  The trick here is that, though the doctrine says that Jesus is fully God and fully man all the time, this sleight of hand phrase gets you to focus on one half of his person to the exclusion of the other.  But, again, that is not what the doctrine states.  Either Jesus is fully God, all the time, from eternity to eternity, or he is not God at all.  So you can not separate out his human side and say that that side of him alone died on the cross, (i.e. Jesus only died on the cross).  Either the whole person of Jesus died that day, (i.e. Jehovah died on the cross), or the whole person of Jesus did not die at all.  Well, at this point, the Trinitarian is likely to cry, “Mystery!”, and change the subject. What is the last refuge of a Trinitarian?  What is the subject to which he will gravitate when all else fails?  Ontology, (background information)!  With its origins firmly rooted in Greek philosophy – not in scripture – ontology is nothing more than a way of neatly categorizing everything that exists in the universe.  The methods and the rules come from philosophers, not from the Almighty, and the application of various ontological constructs on scripture is simply confusing unless it is done selectively and circumstantially by a skilled Trinitarian. According to the ontological constructs of a Trinitarian, God is a type of being made up of three persons.  So, regardless of any evidence that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Son is still said to be God because that is the type of being that he is.  For example, my child may be subordinate to me, but that does not make him any less a human being.  Unfortunately, Trinitarians tie a neat little bow on the story here and present it as though they are handing you the gift of all-surpassing wisdom.  After all, who can argue with this airtight circular logic?  Dig a little deeper, however, and the ontological argument immediately falls to pieces. First, recall that, according to the trinity doctrine, Jesus is both a God being and a human being.  Therefore, he is not just one of three persons in one being.  He is one person in two beings – a God being and a human being!  The “Godhead” then becomes three persons in two beings, or, at the very least, two persons in one being and one person in two beings.  But, it doesn’t end there.  By far, the vast majority of Trinitarians claim that the Angel of the LORD, (who makes many appearances in the Old Testament), was Jehovah Himself, likely a “pre-incarnation” form of Jesus, and angels, by ontological construct, are a third type of being altogether.  That turns the “Godhead” into three persons in three beings – God being, angel being, and human being – or two persons in one being and one person in three beings, or two persons in two beings and one person three beings, etc.!  Alternatively, as with the question of the cross, Trinitarians must split Jesus down the middle again and say that the God being part of Jesus belongs to the tr inity and the human being part of Jesus is a distinct and separate being of his own, leaving us with the trinity and Jesus the human being existing separately, even if cooperatively.  Clearly, trying to paint a tidy little picture of Jesus, or the trinity, through ontology does not work. So what is at the root of all this tortured logic and philosophical gymnastics?  Quite simply, It is the desire of the Trinitarian to forge the three gods of his doctrine into one single god.  In their attempts to elevate Jesus to the same level as the God that he serves, (Revelations 3:12), they have created an unworkable dilemma that scripture presents them at every turn.  God is one, (Deuteronomy 6:4), yet the Father and Son make two, (John 8:17-18).  Try as they might, they simply can not get around this divinely placed hole in their doctrine.  For, when one looks to the cross and the glorious resurrection that followed, one can clearly see the work of two distinct, separable beings: one who died and rose again, and One who can never die, but grants life to all who live.  Trinitarians are eternally trying to fill in the gap between these two very different beings. To be clear, the thought to which I would love to see a response is the question: Who died on the cross?  Jesus only or Jehovah? Thanks!

Great post, WIT!  Trinitarians don't seem to be aware that we are onto those switch the rule tactics they use, and if they are, they don't seem the least bit bothered by them!  But we know and they know and I am sure that they have to admit that their doctrine leaves far too many unanswered questions that must be rationalized through the avoidance of unbroken scripture.

Not to mention it raises even more ridiculous questions such as some of what you've pointed out.

[NickHassan]

Hi cubes,
And if they want “God” to mean the Father they pick and choose betwen verses. When they want it to mean the trinity they claim that right too.

If they see “nature” sometimes they take to mean 'class of being' and other times the person.

Deity is seen as a attribute ascribed to any person in their trinity, meaning they can be seen as individuals, worshiped as individuals but not BE individuals.

What they never address is what is a BEING because if they did say any member of their trinity is a being then they would have shown that the Father and Son are individual with life in themselves.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Psalm 2 deserves a closer look in view of the trinity theory

“1Why are (A)the nations in an uproar
        And the peoples (B)devising a vain thing?
   2The ©kings of the earth take their stand
        And the rulers take counsel together
        (D)Against the LORD and against His [a](E)Anointed, saying,
   3″Let us (F)tear their fetters apart
        And cast away their cords from us!”
   4He who sits in the heavens (G)laughs,
        The Lord (H)scoffs at them.
   5Then He will speak to them in His (I)anger
        And (J)terrify them in His fury, saying,
   6″But as for Me, I have installed (K)My King
        Upon Zion, (L)My holy mountain.”
   7″I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
        He said to Me, 'You are (M)My Son,
        Today I have begotten You.
   8'Ask of Me, and (N)I will surely give (O)the nations as Your inheritance,
        And the very (P)ends of the earth as Your possession.
   9'You shall [c](Q)break them with a rod of iron,
        You shall ®shatter them like earthenware.'”
   10Now therefore, O kings, (S)show discernment;
        Take warning, O [d]judges of the earth.
   11Worship the LORD with (T)reverence
        And rejoice with (U)trembling.
   12Do homage to (V)the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
        For (W)His wrath may [e]soon be kindled
        How blessed are all who (X)take refuge in Him”

It seems to speak of two beings,
a Father God and His Son whom be begets, anoints and appoints as ruler.

It is hard to see how any trinity theory can fit with these scriptural facts

[david]

Hi Isaiah. I tried to send you a private message twice and decided this would be faster.
Two things: Wondering if you know what page on this thread your lengthy arguement to me about John 1:1 is on.
Also, you mentioned some question you asked me on another thread. I got distracted and now don't even know which thread you asked me if I had looked at your question on.

Help?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 25 2006,05:29)

I wasn’t trying to “disprove that, based on the grammar, ‘theos’ in John 1:1c must be interpreted in the qualitative sense.

So then you admit that this view is possible grammatically.

Quote

I wasn’t trying to “disprove that, based on the grammar, ‘theos’ in John 1:1c must be interpreted in the qualitative sense. And if had bothered to properly read my posts you would have known this. My point is that you cannot affirm, by direct assertion or inference, that the article with ‘theos’ always denotes ‘identity’ or, conversely, that the absence of the article always designates a qualitative or indefinite construal. The article is actually irrelevant to the correct rendering of the John 1:1c clause. In a predicate nominative construction the article does not dictate the interpretation of the noun, context does! That was Colwell’s whole point t8.

Uh huh. So you say that the article doesn't matter.

Do you think then if the article was added to John 10:34, that the verses meaning wouldn't change?

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 25 2006,05:29)

You are right, it is a very serious accusation, and I don’t make it lightly. I certainly wouldn't do it if there was an element of ambiguity involved, but there isn’t – it's clear cut. You teach that the noun 'theos' in John 1:1c is denotative of quality not identity because the article is missing. This is not true. It's a watchtower lie that you have perpetuated for quite a while now, even when the error has been explained to you – many times over, and in detail. You indeed have been lying to people t8, the evidence speaks for itself. These are your words:

FYI there are many who teach that the lack of the article is very important in John 1:1, JWs aside. You say “Identity’ can be conveyed with – or – without – the – article”. But in saying this you actually give rise in your own theology to the possibility that 'theos' in John 1:1c can be qualitive”. That being the case, you personally cannot use John 1:1 to prove that Jesus is God if you admit that it could be qualitive. This is the point. Trinitarians use John 1:1c as one of the major pillars for the Trinity doctrine. They quote John 1:1c (even on it's own, without context of other scriptures) as if it were definite proof that Jesus was and is God Almighty. But at least Is 1:18 admits that this is not necessarily the case. Ahh a Trinitarian with a bit of vision.

Anyway, I have pointed out many times that the lack of the article as well as the context John 1:1 shows us that it is qualitive. The context in John 1:1b is that the Word was with God. How can the Word be WITH God, if he is that God. I have taught this many times if you wish to check.

If one holds that John 1:1c isn't qualitive, rather it is identifying the Word as God himself, then that leads to confusion and this confusion doesn't agree with the order we see in scripture and contradicts many hundreds of verses in the bible, as well as contaminating John 1:1 and the book of John as a whole with confusion.

By confusion I mean understanding John 1:1c as “the Word is actually God”. This understanding opens up legitimate questions such as “who is God that the Word was with”? Were there 2 Gods then? If the Word was God and the Word was with God, then we have 2 Gods do we not? But if you say there is one God even though your understanding of John 1:1c says there are 2 (remember – the Word was with God), then if the Word is God, then what is the Father? Remember there is one God.

It appears that what you say about the article being present in John 1:1c for the word “theos” would render a modalistic context, (HO THEOS EN HO LOGOS), but which way do you read John 1:1c then?

As God himself

As divine in a qualitive sense.

Or do you have a different option?

If you choose the first option then by your own reasoning it appears that you are saying Jesus is God and you are still stuck with the same problem that John 1:1c has even with the article (except for the ability to reverse the sentence). In this case The Word is God himself, The Word is with God, so there must be 2 Gods.

If you believe the second option, i.e., that it is qualitive, then you cannot use John 1:1 to prove your Trinity doctrine.

As I see it, either way you have been caught in your own craftiness.

[Author]

Posts