Home Christian Writings Supporting the Trinity Doctrine? – The Trinity Doctrine John 1:1 Page 83

John 1:1

John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

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

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.

Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.

Look at the difference between these two sentences.

1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.

Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.

In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.

So it literally says:

John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.

Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.

So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.

In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.

Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:

So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.

In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as  a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?

To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one 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 man. Look at the next example:

a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.

See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.

In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.

Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adam

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adam

Notice that the second example is still the correct one.

To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, 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 had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).

So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.

The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.

Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.

One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.

Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not  become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things  were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 

So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 1,641 through 1,660 (of 26,000 total)
123…828384…1,2981,2991,300
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 7, 2008 at 11:53 am#109954
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,06:22)

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,00:34)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)
    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)

    Is the Father the image of the invisible God?

    Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? ???

    Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!

    WJ


    Let's put your words to the test.
    The test is scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

    Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

    Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
    It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
    I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
    At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.


    But… here is the rest of the story… “The question why the Son is called “The Word” may be answered by saying that the term expresses both his nature and his office. The word is that which reveals. The Son is the εἰκών and ἀπαύγασμα of God, and therefore his word. It is his office to make God known to his creatures. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. The Son, therefore, as the revealer of God, is the Word.”

    Hodge, C. Systematic Theology (504). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

    So according to all of Scripture, on this issue, no one has seen God, however, the Son has come as a declarer of God…. and the Son is, as the writer of Hebrews also states, the “exact representation of His nature”…. and, those who have seen Christ have seen the Father. For we have the very words of Christ Jesus Himself who said (John 14:9 ESV)  Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?”

    To see Jesus, is to see God.  Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit”, and not to Jesus, further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.

    blessings,
    Ken


    Hi epistemaniac

    Excellent points!

    WJ


    Thank you :) and blessings to you for fighting the good fight! keep on keeping on!!

    1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

    Jude 1:3-4 (ESV) 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

    Galatians 6:9 (ESV) And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 12:13 pm#109955
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,07:00)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)
    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)

    Is the Father the image of the invisible God?

    Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? ???

    Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!

    WJ


    Let's put your words to the test.
    The test is scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

    Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

    Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
    It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
    I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
    At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    John also said the same thing…

    No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET

    No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 1 John 4:12

    But wait….

    Yahshua says…

    (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God – “he has seen the Father”.) John 6:46 NET

    Question is “why would the Apostle John say “no one' has seen God at any time unless John knew that Yahshua is “the true God”, the Word that was with God and was God.

    So if no one has seen God then it is imparitive that Yahshua not being a part of the “no one” is also the “True God”.

    And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. “This one is the true God and eternal life“. 1 John 5:20

    WJ


    Excellent points!! God sees His own reflection in the face of Jesus, doesn't He? So while it is true that no one has seen God, God has certainly, seen Himself! John 1:1 says that Jesus was “pros” with the Father, He was face to face with Him, equals, as it were. Robertson's Word Pictures says “Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 12:19 pm#109956
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote
    The millstone awaits those who would upset the faith of God's little ones.

    That is EXACTLY why you need to be fearful Nick, I fear for your soul, I really do!

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 1:37 pm#109958
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,00:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,07:00)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)
    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)

    Is the Father the image of the invisible God?

    Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? ???

    Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!

    WJ


    Let's put your words to the test.
    The test is scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

    Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

    Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
    It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
    I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
    At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    John also said the same thing…

    No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET

    No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 1 John 4:12

    But wait….

    Yahshua says…

    (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God – “he has seen the Father”.) John 6:46 NET

    Question is “why would the Apostle John say “no one' has seen God at any time unless John knew that Yahshua is “the true God”, the Word that was with God and was God.

    So if no one has seen God then it is imparitive that Yahshua not being a part of the “no one” is also the “True God”.

    And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. “This one is the true God and eternal life“. 1 John 5:20

    WJ


    Excellent points!! God sees His own reflection in the face of Jesus, doesn't He? So while it is true that no one has seen God, God has certainly, seen Himself! John 1:1 says that Jesus was “pros” with the Father, He was face to face with Him, equals, as it were. Robertson's Word Pictures says “Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”

    blessings,
    Ken


    It still does not prove the trinity doctrine. Because of Ephesians 4:6 tells us that there is only one God the Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. By God's Holy Spirit we become one with the Father and Jesus.
    Lets not forget that the name God is only a title, they both have other names. Jehovah is His name , He alone is above all. Yahshua is the Son of God. Just because He was face to face with Jehovah God His Father, does not make them equal. In fact Jesus said so, that the Father is greater then I. So are you going to call Jesus a liar? I hope not.

    There are many God's, even Satan is called God of this world.
    And the whole world is deceived, only a few are called out right now. The road to destruction is wide, while the road of righteousness is narrow and steep, and few will find it.

    Peace and Love Irene

    October 7, 2008 at 1:50 pm#109959
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,07:50)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,07:34)
    Hi WJ,
    If you acknowledge the Father as God why do you teach that His Son is primarily to be worshipped?
    Why not follow the Son and worship his Father and God?
    You do not worship a trinity do you?


    Hi NH

    If the Father is the invisible God then who is being worshipped in Revelation chapter 4? ???

    WJ


    Exactly, all who are not worshiping Jesus, will be excluded from the company of heaven, because it is to Him that every knee will bow…. of course the bible also says that every knee will bow to God the Father and that He is the only God… Isa 45:22-23 esv Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. (23) By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” While at the same time it also says Php 2:10-11 esv so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
    So there is only 1 God, but we are told by some that Jesus is not God, though he may be “a god” or a “lesser god”. These are lies, the bible is clear, there is only one true God and if Jesus is not in union with, in essences the same God as the one true God, then He is a false god, and not to be worshipped. The Bible also says, however, that God has sworn to Himself that every knee will bow to Him, but it is also said to be the case that every knee will bow (a position of worship) to Jesus. So which is it? Both? In what sense? If Jesus is not God He is not worthy of our praise, our worship, our honor, and in fact, to honor Him in those ways would be idolatry and would be blaspheming God. Once again, it is the doctrine of the trinity that best makes sense of these issues.

    also, if the angels are to worship the Son, we ought to as well….
    Hebrews 1:5-6 (ESV) 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

    Because the bible is very clear that we are not to worship anyone but God, and since the angels worship Jesus, and this is spoken of in a positive light, in other words they are not criticized for worshiping Jesus, it is very clear that Jesus must be God, otherwise the Bible contradicts itself by saying on the one hand we are not to have any other gods before the one true God, (“Exodus 34:14 (ESV) (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)”) while on the other the bible speaks of worship being given to the Son. Either Jesus is God or the Bible contradicts itself.

    And to all who want to try and say that Jesus is some kind of “lesser god”, the Bible says Deuteronomy 8:19 (ESV) And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish.”
    After all, those who lower Jesus' ontological status and say that He is a lesser god, still “go after Him” by saying that He is the Savior, the Messiah, the only way to the Father, etc. So if Jesus is not essentially one with the Father, God in the same way the Father is God, all those who “go after Jesus” are guilty of “going after other gods” and will be receiving severe punishment for their blasphemous idolatry.

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 1:57 pm#109960
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,08:26)
    Hi WJ,
    We reveal to the best of our limited knowledge and ability what is written in scripture, the bread of life.
    No trinity is found there but you still espouse it?


    Just because YOU have not found it, it hardly follows that it is not there….. keep looking N…. maybe someday the scales will fall off and you will see…. but you must come to the Scriptures ready to believe them and nothing else…. not the vain traditions of man…. not the theologies of the modalists, t8, or any other man made philosophy which wrongly lowers Jesus to a level of creature versus His being worthy of worship… you must adhere only to the Scriptures N, and you must come to them in a humble, teachable way, armed with the best skills of understanding (hermeneutics, exegesis, etc) that you can bring ti the table… and you must stop being so superficial…. your reading skills, your understanding of the Scriptures are just like your reading of posts on this forum… you lack judgment and understanding because you either lack the ability or the willingness to think deeply about these matters….. perhaps then…. perhaps then….. you will see… if the Lord wills it and you are granted grace and mercy…. perhaps then…. perhaps then….

    blessings,
    E

    October 7, 2008 at 2:12 pm#109961
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 08 2008,01:37)

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,00:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,07:00)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)
    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)

    Is the Father the image of the invisible God?

    Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? ???

    Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!

    WJ


    Let's put your words to the test.
    The test is scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

    Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

    Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
    It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
    I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
    At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    John also said the same thing…

    No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET

    No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 1 John 4:12

    But wait….

    Yahshua says…

    (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God – “he has seen the Father”.) John 6:46 NET

    Question is “why would the Apostle John say “no one' has seen God at any time unless John knew that Yahshua is “the true God”, the Word that was with God and was God.

    So if no one has seen God then it is imparitive that Yahshua not being a part of the “no one” is also the “True God”.

    And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. “This one is the true God and eternal life“. 1 John 5:20

    WJ


    Excellent points!! God sees His own reflection in the face of Jesus, doesn't He? So while it is true that no one has seen God, God has certainly, seen Himself! John 1:1 says that Jesus was “pros” with the Father, He was face to face with Him, equals, as it were. Robertson's Word Pictures says “Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”

    blessings,
    Ken


    It still does not prove the trinity doctrine. Because of Ephesians 4:6 tells us that there is only one God the Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. By God's Holy Spirit we become one with the Father and Jesus.
    Lets not forget that the name God is only a title, they both have other names. Jehovah is His name , He alone is above all.  Yahshua is the Son of God. Just because He was face to face with Jehovah God His Father, does not make them equal. In fact Jesus said so, that the Father is greater then I. So are you going to call Jesus a liar? I hope not.

    There are many God's, even Satan is called God of this world.
    And the whole world is deceived, only a few are called out right now. The road to destruction is wide, while the road of righteousness is narrow and steep, and few will find it.

    Peace and Love Irene


    Since e came before my post I just want to make sure you read my post. And I want to add, that Jesus is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, but only in the Millinium. After that Jesus gives all back to the Father.
    1 Corinth. 15:28 Now when all things are made subjec t to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
    Irene

    October 7, 2008 at 10:40 pm#109973
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 08 2008,01:37)

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,00:13)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,07:00)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)
    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)

    Is the Father the image of the invisible God?

    Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? ???

    Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!

    WJ


    Let's put your words to the test.
    The test is scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

    Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

    Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
    It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
    I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
    At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    John also said the same thing…

    No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. John 1:18 NET

    No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 1 John 4:12

    But wait….

    Yahshua says…

    (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God – “he has seen the Father”.) John 6:46 NET

    Question is “why would the Apostle John say “no one' has seen God at any time unless John knew that Yahshua is “the true God”, the Word that was with God and was God.

    So if no one has seen God then it is imparitive that Yahshua not being a part of the “no one” is also the “True God”.

    And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. “This one is the true God and eternal life“. 1 John 5:20

    WJ


    Excellent points!! God sees His own reflection in the face of Jesus, doesn't He? So while it is true that no one has seen God, God has certainly, seen Himself! John 1:1 says that Jesus was “pros” with the Father, He was face to face with Him, equals, as it were. Robertson's Word Pictures says “Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.”

    blessings,
    Ken


    It still does not prove the trinity doctrine. Because of Ephesians 4:6 tells us that there is only one God the Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. By God's Holy Spirit we become one with the Father and Jesus.
    Lets not forget that the name God is only a title, they both have other names. Jehovah is His name , He alone is above all.  Yahshua is the Son of God. Just because He was face to face with Jehovah God His Father, does not make them equal. In fact Jesus said so, that the Father is greater then I. So are you going to call Jesus a liar? I hope not.

    There are many God's, even Satan is called God of this world.
    And the whole world is deceived, only a few are called out right now. The road to destruction is wide, while the road of righteousness is narrow and steep, and few will find it.

    Peace and Love Irene


    well your post has certainly done noting to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity….

    at any rate, the point at this juncture is to say that for those who say that Jesus is a lesser God, and lets face it, John 1:1 says that Jesus is God (or as some say “a god”), that if there is only one true God (and there is) either Jesus is in some way of the same essence as the Father, OR,  Jesus simply has to be a false god.

    Now since John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (ESV) I have to ask you, are YOU calling God a liar? If Jesus is God, as the word of God says, who are you or anyone else to say otherwise? Yes, Eph. 4:6, as well as a multitude of other places in the Scripture says that there is only one true God.. since Jesus IS God, either Jesus is the true God or He is a false God, there is no room for another choice, He must be one or the other. Now Trinitarians have the capacity within their system of biblical thought to handle this situation, because we say that Jesus is of the same essence  as the Father (and the Spirit) and thus, there is only 1 God, but that this God has 3 different personages within it, 1 God, 3 persons. However, those who deny that Jesus is God first of all flatly deny the plain teaching of Scripture which DOES teach that Jesus is God, secondly not only do they deny that Jesus is God, thus denying the Scriptures, they often try and come up with their own man made theories to deal with this situation, eg JW's and others who says that Jerus is a “lesser god” or that He is “the mighty god” versus the “almighty god”. This simply won't do. If Jesus is a lesser god or the mighty god, or any other way people want to try and make a difference without a distinction, then he is still a false god since there is only 1 true god.

    As far as the “Father is greater than I” type of passages, I see that you did not read the other post in this thread that addresses this is issue, but thats ok, there has been a lot written… here it is again for you:

    Quote
    As far as the “greater than” references go:
    “JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself a
    s less than God?
    MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110).
    According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8).
    CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature.
    Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

    Further on this point, perhaps you are currently married, or some day will be. When you are, or if you are, your husband will be “greater” than you. Hurry and go tell him this if you are married, it will make his day! :) How is your husband greater than you? In Eph 5 we are told that man is the head of the wife, that wives should submit to their husbands just as husbands should submit to Christ. Now, since wives have to submit to their husbands, this means, according to the reasoning of those who want to insist that for Jesus to say that the Father is “greater” that this MUST mean that somehow the Father is of a different order of being or said another way, that the Father is ontologically greater than Jesus, that since this is the case, then men MUST also be ontologically superior creatures to women. After all, men are the head of women and wives are to submit/be submissive to their husbands. So this absolutely proves that men are superior to women doesn't it? Not really. You see even though wives are to submit to their husbands, they are in no way inferior to men in general or their husbands in particular. Its just that within the family there are differing roles for men and women, and in this role, within the sphere of the family, women are to submit to men, not because men are somehow superior to women and women are somehow inherently inferior to men, but because of their roles within the family. So too, then, when Jesus says that the Father is “greater” than He is. Its not that the Father is ontologically superior, after all, John 1:1 says that Jesus is God, just as the Father/Jehovah/Yahweh is God. No, rather it is the case that in their roles, in creation, in salvation, etc, the Son has chosen to be submissive to the Father. As to their roles, the Father is greater than the Son, I freely acknowledge this, so no, silly, I do not think that Jesus is lying about this. What I am saying is that while the Son has willingly humbled Himself, even to death on the Cross, and chosen to be submissive to the Father, always doing the will of the Father, this does not mean that this also NECESSARILY means that the Father is a greater order of being or is ontologically superior to Jesus. Just as men and women are equals on an ontological level, so too the Son and the Father are ontological equals. after all, if a man and woman beget a child, that child is the same order of being that they are, right? Well the Bible says that the Son of God is “the ONLY begotten” of the Father, so too, then, like begets like, the Son is God because the Father is God.

    As far as my saying that John 1:1 proves that Jesus is equal to the father, in case you misssed it, I was referring to Greek expert Ropbertson's Word Pictures where he is the one who says that jesus is “pros ton theon”: “Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.” Robertson continues “And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.”

    I have never denied that there are many gods, that is why I have been careful to say “one true God”.

    Lastly, you say

    Quote
    And the whole world is deceived, only a few are called out right now. The road to destruction is wide, while the road of righteousness is narrow and steep, and few will find it.


    Amen, except that the whole world is not deceived, since Christians are “in” the world and not of it, apparently, since they ARE Christians, they are NOT deceived. But that point aside, I only hope that those who deny the plain Scriptural truth that Jesus is God, and not a false god, get off that road to destruction, for the road to destruction IS indeed wide, and many there are on it, even aside from those who deny these truths there are so many false religions out there… its sad really. But I am here to help in any way I can. I just put forth God's word and let Him work on hearts. You see Irene, God's word ALWAYS accomplishes it's purpose. If it goes out and hearts are softened and people become submissive to the word of God, then PRAISE GOD!! However, the word also goes forth and still accomplishes it's purpose even for those who do not turn aside form their false beliefs, for in their cases, their hearts are further hardened like Pharaoh's to the truth, every time they deny it.

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 10:54 pm#109975
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,01:57)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,08:26)
    Hi WJ,
    We reveal to the best of our limited knowledge and ability what is written in scripture, the bread of life.
    No trinity is found there but you still espouse it?


    Just because YOU have not found it, it hardly follows that it is not there….. keep looking N…. maybe someday the scales will fall off and you will see…. but you must come to the Scriptures ready to believe them and nothing else…. not the vain traditions of man…. not the theologies of the modalists, t8, or any other man made philosophy which wrongly lowers Jesus to a level of creature versus His being worthy of worship… you must adhere only to the Scriptures N, and you must come to them in a humble, teachable way, armed with the best skills of understanding (hermeneutics, exegesis, etc) that you can bring ti the table… and you must stop being so superficial…. your reading skills, your understanding of the Scriptures are just like your reading of posts on this forum… you lack judgment and understanding because you either lack the ability or the willingness to think deeply about these matters….. perhaps then…. perhaps then….. you will see… if the Lord wills it and you are granted grace and mercy…. perhaps then…. perhaps then….

    blessings,
    E


    Hi E,
    Then where is this TRINITY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE?
    Did the TEACHER mention it?
    Should we go elsewhere?

    Surely you do not mean we have to read between the lines?

    October 7, 2008 at 10:56 pm#109976
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,23:38)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,06:00)
    Hi E,
    If the bible does not mention any trinity should we search for support for this theory elsewhere?
    Vain human intellectualism is a futile exercise is it not if truth is what we seek?


    Nick, your superficial reading, and for that matter, responses, ARE most obvious once again lol…. I did not suggest that you go outside of the bible for proof of the Trinity! David has asked for feedback concerning the Sahidic version of John 1:1, I gave it to him. Secondly, I was merely pointing out where the info he was quoting probably originally came from, since the site he said he had originally copied and pasted the material in his post above was gone, I thought that even though I did not and do not agree with him or any antitrinitarians, I would still try and help him out, and any others interested in this subject, by providing a resource for all antitrinitarians. So he additional information is not in support of the Trinity at all!! Its in fact against it!! LOL!

    blessings,
    Ken


    Hi E,
    Should we seek to be entertainers who use long clever words?

    Is that the way to follow Jesus?

    Or just another vanity?

    October 7, 2008 at 11:00 pm#109977
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    Is the good fight for the perpetuation of man's traditional doctines?
    Is that how we are to show faithfulness to God?

    October 7, 2008 at 11:06 pm#109978
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,18:26)
    Hi E,
    Why should anyone follow your lead in studying hermeneutics
    if it has led you to conclude that God is a trinity
    when scripture never teaches such things?

    How can studying scripture find what is not written??


    The fact that you are refusing to study hermeneutics, which is simply learning to interpret Scriptures by taking into account figures of speech (parables, metphors, didactic passages, etc) speaks volumes for where you are in your very superficial understanding of scripture, and that since you won't, sadly, its all you will apparently ever have.

    As to your last question,

    In your case, apparently only by obstinately refusing to see the truth. :)

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 11:17 pm#109979
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 07 2008,18:42)

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,00:34)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)
    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)

    Is the Father the image of the invisible God?

    Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? ???

    Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!

    WJ


    Let's put your words to the test.
    The test is scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

    Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

    Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
    It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
    I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
    At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.


    But… here is the rest of the story… “The question why the Son is called “The Word” may be answered by saying that the term expresses both his nature and his office. The word is that which reveals. The Son is the εἰκών and ἀπαύγασμα of God, and therefore his word. It is his office to make God known to his creatures. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. The Son, therefore, as the revealer of God, is the Word.”

    Hodge, C. Systematic Theology (504). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

    So according to all of Scripture, on this issue, no one has seen God, however, the Son has come as a declarer of God…. and the Son is, as the writer of Hebrews also states, the “exact representation of His nature”…. and, those who have seen Christ have seen the Father. For we have the very words of Christ Jesus Himself who said (John 14:9 ESV)  Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?”

    To see Jesus, is to see God.  Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit”, and not to Jesus, further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.

    blessings,
    Ken


    Hi E.

    You admitted that God is God the Father and that he is invisible.

    That is progress.

    Now read 10 of these verses at random and try and replace the word God with Trinity and watch that doctrine make a complete hash of interpreting the scriptures.

    https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm

    In other words the true God mentioned in scripture is the Father.

    God is the Father and he is invisible.
    The Word is Yeshua and he is visible and in body form.

    God is not the Trinity, he is the Father.

    Also if God was the Trinity, then you can't use the word 'him' when referring to him. The trinity Doctrine requires that God is called THEM, not HIM.

    Thanks for listening.


    as soon as you can tell me how Jesus is god, but not the true God, and yet not therefore a false God… perhaps I will read your verses.

    However, Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that the verses do not make any sense by substituting words. What does that prove? Nothing. Does that disprove the Trinity? Hardly. Trying to make verses say other than what the original authors intended them to say is altering the Scriptures, and I would rather not follow you in your (apparent) practice of doing so.

    As far as your stating that I would have to refer to the Trinity as a “them”, I see no reason why I should suppose that I MUST do anything you say. And ESPECIALLY since the doctrine of the Trinity continues to affirm an essential singularity in the essence of the Godhead, after all even those who oppose the Trinity know that those who do affirm it speak of God as 1 God in 3 persons, disagree or not, like it or not, its common knowledge that we refer to God as a singularity as to His deity, and therefore using singular masculine terms to refer to God seems perfectly fine to me, thanks anyway though.

    You are welcome by the way….

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 11:23 pm#109980
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40)

    Quote
    So how many Gods or gods are there for you brother David;
    one is almighty and other is small 'god' or mighty god. Am I correct ?

    Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand.  It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.”
    And while many have certain degrees of power, some more than others, there is only one who is above all, only one who is AL mighty.  Hence, while Jesus is called a god, he is not the God of Jehovah.  Rather, it is the reverse.  Compared to Jesus, Jehovah is mighty and hence, God.  In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.)  The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans.  And Jesus, of course, if these ones have power and strength, Jesus has a lot more and hence, can obviously be called a God.  But this doesn't make him the Almighty God, “the” God of the Bible.
    I think we often think of a


    thats strange…. I thought that JW's (you are a JW… right?) taught that Jesus is “the mighty god” while Jehovah is the “almighty God”…..

    “He is the “mighty God” as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Therefore, they (JW's) say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.” (CARM)

    “The WBS (Watchtower Bible Society) does concede here that Isaiah 9:6 is fulfilled in the man Jesus of Nazareth, and that He is the Messiah. However, they then argue that Christ Jesus is Mighty God, but that He is not Jehovah–the Almighty God–because the text of Isaiah doesn’t have “the” in it. The truth remains though, that the Bible itself knows nothing of an Almighty God, and a lesser “Mighty” God.” (Apprising Scriptures; Awakening to the Light of Scripture)

    “Isaiah 9:6
    For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (kjv)
    Jehovah’s Witnesses do not question that this verse speaks prophetically of Jesus Christ, identifying him as the “Mighty God” (nwt). But they believe that the Son is mere “a god”—one of the “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ ” (1 Cor. 8:5, nwt)—just as Satan, the devil, is called “the god of this system of things” (2 Cor. 4:4, nwt). They see Jesus Christ as a created being, an angel. According to Watchtower theology, he is definitely not Almighty God Jehovah.
    The Witnesses actually have two gods, a big one and a little one: an “Almighty God,” Jehovah—and a “mighty god,” Jesus Christ. In practice, though, Jehovah gets all the worship, and Jesus is only called “a god” by way of concession.
    Reed, D. A. (1997, c1986). Jehovah's Witnesses : Answered verse by verse.

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 11:38 pm#109981
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,15:57)
    Hi WJ
    Long post
    I’ll break it into smaller chunks as time allows…

    Quote
    Really? And just how is it that two separate beings can be “Omnipotent”? Two separate beings cannot have all power. How can a “finite being” have infinite power? However one can. The point is the attribute that the Father has “omnipotence’, Yeshua also has. They are One!

    The question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”. You have not answered the question for Yeshua has all authority and power.

    1 – I did not say 2 separate beings were omnipotent. That is the point – Jesus can hardly be called omnipotent if he needed to have all authority handed to him…
    2- you begin your statement by rightly illustrating the impossibility for more than one to be truly omnipotent, then end it by saying that 2 (the Father and Yeshua) both share omnipotence. It can hardly be omnipotence if it is shared – it is co-nipotence at best (just made that word up btw ;))
    3 – you can run this same simple truth over omniscience and the attribute of being eternal also.
    4 – Yeshua has all authority (exuousia) why? Because it has been given to him by the Father, the like figure of which Joseph received all authority to govern Egypt on behalf of and by Pharaoh.

    Quote
    Post incarnation. Paul in Phil 2 disagrees with you and says that Yeshua who is in the “form of God” emptied himself and did recieve it again.

    As I understand it is is GOD who emptied Himself into Jesus to fully indwell him at Jordan.
    Jesus on the other hand was willing to relinquish any position he had with GOD in the SPIRIT in order to be formed into flesh to be the tabernacle for GOD on earth.
    Essentially it was a shifting of the Heavenly pattern onto the earth.
    What Jesus received back was that former position with GOD, only now with the added authority of intercession between the fallen sons of Adam and his Father.
    When it says he was in the ‘form of  GOD’ you have to bear in mind it is not saying he IS GOD.
    ‘Form of’ and ‘Image of’ do not mean ‘is GOD’.

    Quote
    This is truly a fallacious argument for it does not speak to the ontological nature of Yeshua who is the Word/God.


    All sons of GOD are WORD children by HIS SPIRIT. That is how we can be one as he is one with his Father. Yet I do not see that as millions of GODs, it is ONE GOD and HIS Family.
    Imo 😉


    you are a Modalist then….?

    you said, in particular

    Quote
    As I understand it is is GOD who emptied Himself into Jesus to fully indwell him at Jordan.

    But the Scripture does not say that that it is God who emptied Himself “into” Jesus at all, it says that Jesu emptied HIMSELF: Philippians 2:4-8 (ESV) 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

    The passage then changes referents and THEN begins to speak of God the Father (versus Christ Jesus the Son) Philippians 2:9 (ESV) Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,” etc

    So no…. your understanding is eisiogesis, a reading into the text of your theology, and is not actually present within the text of the Scirpture itself….. just thought you should know :)

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 8, 2008 at 12:39 am#109982
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,11:06)

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,18:26)
    Hi E,
    Why should anyone follow your lead in studying hermeneutics
    if it has led you to conclude that God is a trinity
    when scripture never teaches such things?

    How can studying scripture find what is not written??


    The fact that you are refusing to study hermeneutics, which is simply learning to interpret Scriptures by taking into account figures of speech (parables, metphors, didactic passages, etc) speaks volumes for where you are in your very superficial understanding of scripture, and that since you won't, sadly, its all you will apparently ever have.

    As to your last question,

    In your case, apparently only by obstinately refusing to see the truth. :)

    blessings,
    Ken


    Hi E,
    If what you say
    is truth
    why is it not written?

    October 8, 2008 at 1:16 am#109983
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    opps…. never mind

    October 8, 2008 at 1:21 am#109984
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    never mind here as well….

    October 8, 2008 at 1:24 am#109985
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    Can you tack together some inferences
    and try to make one truth out of them
    or is scriptural truth written?

    October 8, 2008 at 1:25 am#109986
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 07 2008,17:55)

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,17:21)

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11)
    Been busy last few days…
    Hi WJ
    Some thoughts on some of your comments.

    Quote
    Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?


    Only one?
    How about a few?
    Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again…
    Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28)
    Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again.
    Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die.
    Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man.
    There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD.
    If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die.
    The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again.

    Quote
    There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God.


    There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following
    Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning.
    Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.
    “you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that.
    What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son.
    Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence.

    Quote
    YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior.


    A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all.
    How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative.
    As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical
    The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image.
    Blessings


    you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!!
    ;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternally is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man.

    A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
    John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.
    If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,
    (Romans 8:11.)
    While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father.
    —Calvin's Commentaries
    So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD.

    As far as the “greater than” references go:
    “JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God?
    MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110).
    According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8).
    CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature.
    Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
    As far as the whole Jesus had a father,  Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us  lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something?

    blessings,
    Ken


    Good post, understanding the preexisting of Jesus, for me is important.  However I do not believe in the trinity.  The one thing that I would like to add is that when all has been accomplished by Jesus,  we too will take on the name God. God will be all in all.
    1 Corinth. 15:28 The Family of God. Jesus gives all back to the Father. That too shows that the Father is greater then He is. You are also asking a real stupid question about having sex with Maria. To me that was done in a very spiritual way. Also
    You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. The Apostle never taught the trinity and you will not find that word in in the Bible. So are you calling Jesus a liar then when He says that  ” My Father is greater then I?”

    Peace and Love Irene


    Hi Tiffany/Irene…. a few more points….

    I am glad that you think that in the midst of my stupidity, I made at least one good point, albeit a point you happened to already agree with…. coincidence? I think not. :)

    At any rate, first of all, I have it on some pretty high authority that THERE ARE NO stupid questions. Secondly, the Mormons DO in fact teach that Adam (the same one from the Garden of Eden, who is, according to the so-called Adam-God theory, the God assigned to this world) is the one who had sex with Mary and is thus, the Father of Jesus Christ. Now the point of all this is to say that for those who want to push the analogy further than it is supposed to go, such that just because Jesus is called a “Son” , it “proves” (supposedly, according to some) things it was never meant to prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father simpluy because He is called “the Son of God” are proving more than is warrated by the passage. For instance, if because Jesus is called the Son, some believe that He must therefore have not existed prior to His incarnation, as no (human” sons exist prior to their being born. But then, again tot he point at hand, Jesus just isn't a “Son” in the same way a human son is, thus they try and prove too much. So the reference to God having sex with Mary is a real world theological example of which you just apparently were ignorant of, and that is not your fault necessarily, however in your ignorance, you should be careful in saying that other people's points are stupid when you know not of which you speak.

    Speaking of something else that you do not know of which you speak, you say

    Quote
    You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine.

    I have studied theology extensively, and since I am disabled, I have more time on my hands than the average person, I therefore study the bible and theology (which includes historical theology) far more than the average person. Further, aside from my extensive individual studies, I have a degree in Biblical Counseling with a Double Minor in Apologetics and Systematic Theology from Grace College and Seminary in Winona Lake, with 1 year accomplished towards my Master's Degree in Biblical Counseling, which, in God's providence, I was unable to finish due to multiple back operations. So, the point is, I know very
    well both what I believe and why, and you should not assume that just because I disagree with you and you with me, that I am somehow uninformed or have failed to study my bible. Whenever one assumes anything, trouble and misunderstanding is sure to follow.

    As far as the word “Trinity” not appearing in the Bible, so what???? The word “Bible” does not appear in the Bible, should we therefore not believe that there is such a thing as a “Bible”? We have nothing in the Bible which tells us that there will eventually be 66 books in the biblical canon, so… what? Should we continue to add books to our bibles? After all the Bible never specifically says which books are to be considered Scripture and which are not. The fact is, everyone uses non-biblical words to describe their beliefs, that is to say just because they are NON-BIBLICAL words it DOES NOT FOLLOW that they are therefore UNBIBLICAL principles. This is such a basic simple point that so many who disagree with the doctrine just can't seem to grasp, I sure hope you do. If you never bring up the very flimsy argument that the Trinity is not true simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, you will have learned more than many have. Some just never seem to get it….. hopefully you will. Disagree with the Trinity for what you take to be biblical grounds in an agreeable way as possible, fine. But please do not try and argue with such shallow and superficial reasoning as the doctrine is untrue simply because the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. As I said, we all use words that do not appear in the Scriptures to describe our beliefs. How do I know this? You see, for those who really want to try and push this line of (fallacious) reasoning do not push it to its logical conclusion; namely that if we would be consistent, that we must use “biblical” words and only biblical words to describe our beliefs, since the word of God is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, and if you want to insist that we use only biblical words to describe our beliefs, then everyone had better learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, because that is what language the Bible was originally written in. Are you willing to do this? I thought not. And that's fine, you shouldn't have to. But nor should people be restricted to stating their theological beliefs by using words that only appear in the English translations of the bible.

    The important thing to ask is: is the principle taught in Scripture, even if the word is not? And those who believe in the Trinity believe that the principle is in fact a biblical principle, or else, believe it or not, they/we would not in fact believe it.

    blessings,
    Ken

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1,641 through 1,660 (of 26,000 total)
123…828384…1,2981,2991,300
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
ACTIVE TOPICS
POPULAR TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account