Home Christian Writings Supporting the Trinity Doctrine? – The Trinity Doctrine John 1:1 Page 84

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 - 1,661 through 1,680 (of 26,000 total)
123…838485…1,2981,2991,300
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 8, 2008 at 1:25 am#109987
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    If I studied the way you have would I be able to have a better understanding of scripture
    and be able to claim that things are true even if scripture does not say so?

    October 8, 2008 at 1:27 am#109988
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    You study theology extensively.
    Would it not be better to study scripture?

    It is truth.

    October 8, 2008 at 1:29 am#109989
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    If you are trained in biblical counselling
    did they not teach you
    to abide in scripture?

    October 8, 2008 at 3:24 am#109993
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Hi WJ,
    I just wanted to clear something up. If I understand you correctly, you do not believe in all the statements of the trinity doctrine, right? If so, then you would agree that the trinity doctrine is false, right? If it is only partly correct and not completely correct, it has to be false, IMO.
    LU

    October 8, 2008 at 3:51 am#109995
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Hi Ken
    Re Phil 2:4-8 it speaks to Jesus as to his relinquishing of position and authority. Once again (probably through fault of my not being clear enough) I have not managed to get across what I was meaning.
    I will attempt to clarify. When looking at GOD in whatever context I do not believe we are able to do so and come to any definitive understanding unless we follow the pattern of access prescribed by God Himself. Namely we cannot approach Him apart from coming via Jesus Christ. For how can the finite even begin to comprehend the infinite, the temporal to even scratch the surface of the eternal? How? Through the disclosure given via Jesus Christ.

    So GOD does pour Himself into expression through Christ (imo)

    This scripture in Philippians outlines a point of transition of state from the Heavenly into the earthly. GOD who until this point was fully manifest in SPIRIT form only through HIS son was now going to move towards full expression in flesh. Once again via HIS son who was now in the form of flesh. For this to happen there had to be a process of transformation of the Son from a Spirit form into a fleshly.
    Of necessity for this to happen God had to 'vacate' for want of a better word His residence in this Son.
    Then at the time appointed by GOD, HE came down (as symbolically represented in the form of a dove) and indwelt that fleshly tabernacle for the work of redemption. Immediately the ministry of God for the work of salvation began, God now being present to execute it.
    Imo.

    What also bears noticing in my mind is that this mind that was in Christ Jesus in heaven was not the mind of an omnipotent, autonomous being but that of a servant, of one willing and well pleased to be in subjection and perfect harmony to the will and purpose of God.
    And this same attribute of the son – shown before his earthly incarnation is carried through so that we see he was the faithful servant willing to be obedient even unto death in his flesh.
    This imo is the mind of the Son – and sets him apart even when in the ‘form’ of God as being distinct from him. Hardly co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent or co-omniscient.
    Also it is this mind and attitude that we are encouraged to emulate for this is the mind of a true Son of God. Imo.

    Furthermore we see a repeat of this display of subjection from the Son as stated in I Corinthians 15:14-8 It would seem that the Son himself refuses any position of co-equality…

    Blessings

    October 8, 2008 at 5:51 am#110001
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,11:23)

    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


    It is a good post brother Ken,
    I believe that there is only One God in this whole universe and Jesus is the visible image of that One God the Father.

    Thanks and peace to you
    Adam

    October 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm#110020
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi GM,
    By visible image do you mean he reveals all of God's nature and abilities?
    That is by virtue of God living in him, as Spirit, not his own nature.

    October 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm#110024
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 08 2008,15:51)
    Hi Ken
    Re Phil 2:4-8 it speaks to Jesus as to his relinquishing of position and authority. Once again (probably through fault of my not being clear enough) I have not managed to get across what I was meaning.
    I will attempt to clarify. When looking at GOD in whatever context I do not believe we are able to do so and come to any definitive understanding unless we follow the pattern of access prescribed by God Himself. Namely we cannot approach Him apart from coming via Jesus Christ. For how can the finite even begin to comprehend the infinite, the temporal to even scratch the surface of the eternal? How? Through the disclosure given via Jesus Christ.

    So GOD does pour Himself into expression through Christ (imo)

    This scripture in Philippians outlines a point of transition of state from the Heavenly into the earthly. GOD who until this point was fully manifest in SPIRIT form only through HIS son was now going to move towards full expression in flesh. Once again via HIS son who was now in the form of flesh. For this to happen there had to be a process of transformation of the Son from a Spirit form into a fleshly.
    Of necessity for this to happen God had to 'vacate' for want of a better word His residence in this Son.
    Then at the time appointed by GOD, HE came down (as symbolically represented in the form of a dove) and indwelt that fleshly tabernacle for the work of redemption. Immediately the ministry of God for the work of salvation began, God now being present to execute it.
    Imo.

    What also bears noticing in my mind is that this mind that was in Christ Jesus in heaven was not the mind of an omnipotent, autonomous being but that of a servant, of one willing and well pleased to be in subjection and perfect harmony to the will and purpose of God.
    And this same attribute of the son – shown before his earthly incarnation is carried through so that we see he was the faithful servant willing to be obedient even unto death in his flesh.
    This imo is the mind of the Son – and sets him apart even when in the ‘form’ of God as being distinct from him. Hardly co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent or co-omniscient.
    Also it is this mind and attitude that we are encouraged to emulate for this is the mind of a true Son of God. Imo.

    Furthermore we see a repeat of this display of subjection from the Son as stated in I Corinthians 15:14-8 It would seem that the Son himself refuses any position of co-equality…

    Blessings


    Good post,could not have said any better.
    Peace and Love Irene

    October 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm#110025
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,13:25)

    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 cult
    ists 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 Coll
    ege 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


    I had a lenghty post ready for you, but I changed my mind. All I am going to do, is dust of my shoes. Good bye.

    October 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm#110027
    Not3in1
    Participant

    Some very good posts here on the TRINITY. It's a shame that those looking for Trinty stuff won't see them……

    Maybe move them over to the right thread?

    October 8, 2008 at 11:28 pm#110037
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    The important thing to ask is: is the principle [of the trinity] taught in Scripture, even if the word is not?

    Nope.

    October 8, 2008 at 11:32 pm#110038
    david
    Participant

    While in the ministry, I've only met a few priests, ministers, etc.
    Rather than discuss scripture, they often seem to like to state what they believe and then point to the pile of books they've read as confirmation that what they believe is right.
    At that point, I feel like suggesting that perhaps he had been reading the wrong books.

    October 8, 2008 at 11:52 pm#110039
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    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.

    –epistlmaniac

    In my mind, this is the biggest twisting of logic and one of the largest and most deceptive arguments for the trinity. Let's consider it.

    ROMANS 16:27
    “to God, wise alone, be the glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.”–NW
    “To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.”–KJ

    Does saying that Jehovah is wise alone mean that no one else is wise? No, it means that comparitively speaking, no one else is wise.

    Similarly,
    (Mark 10:18) “Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.”

    Does this mean no one else is good, or does it mean that Jehovah is the very standard of good?

    WE HAVE NO PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING THESE THINGS because we understand what the word “wise” or “good” mean and know that there can be varying degrees.

    Now, the problem with the word “God” is that it is so often used with reference to the Almighty, the “true” God, that God that we are supposed to worship, that we have sort of changed the meaning of this word. We believe it means: The one we are supposed to worship.
    But it doesn't really mean that. It means “strong one, powerful one.”

    And we think of false gods as things that aren't gods at all, but that people worship–idols of wood, etc, having no power, no strength, but that people have wrongly given worship to.

    The false gods are not only false because they are “not the true God” but they're false gods, because they have no power at all, none, “eyes they have, but they cannot see, ears they have, but they cannot hear,” etc. Yet, they are called gods, and hence, are really false gods.

    But then, we come to angels who were called gods, the human judges of isreal were called gods. Satan is a god (powerful one.)

    Are the angles “false gods”? Were the judges of Israel false gods? no, they were powerful ones, comparitively speaking. Angels are powerful compared to humans. The judges in israel had power compared to other humans. Hence, called gods.
    This doesn't mean they were “false gods.” It means they had strength and power to a degree.

    Someone can say: “now, that's true wealth.” Or, that's true love. Does that mean that any other kind of wealth is “False wealth”? Or does it mean it's wealth to a lesser degree?

    IT IS FALSE LOGIC AND JUST WRONG THINKING TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THERE IS “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS CALLED GOD IS EITHER A PART OF THAT GODHEAD OR FALSE.

    Compared to Jehovah, the only true God, the only one who is every specifically described as Almighty, everyone else is below him in mightiness.
    So to Jesus, the Father was God. To the Father, Jesus is not God. (See the Bible) But to us, he certainly could be described with that word, and is.

    We have to take into account what the word 'god' means and how it is used in the entire Bible. If our assumptions are wrong, then our conclusion will be wrong. We have to include into our equation how that word “god” is used biblically.

    One concordance gives the meaning of elohim this way: “Elohim, G-d (plural of majesty; plural in form but singular in meaning, with a focus on great power); g-ds (true grammatical plural); and person characterized by greatness of power, mighty one, great one, judge” (Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance).

    The word God applies to Jehovah, thousands of times. About 1000 times his is specifically called God. We know he is God. The word “God” essentially means: “Mighty one.” We know Jehovah, as our creator, is mighty, in fact, he is called ALMIGHTY. His son, is mighty as well, obviously. And therefore the title God can be applied to him, even as it is applied to human judges of isreal, and to angels and to Satan himself and to other false “mighty ones.” A piece of wood can be worshipped as an idol, a god, but really, it is not mighty at all, not really a god, it's false.

    Reviewing:
    1. True can and does mean more than the opposite of false. (We cannot assume that if one thing is true, another thing called by the same is false.)
    2. God means 'mighty one/powerful one/strong one.' (We note how it is used with reference to human judges and angels.)

    So, if Jehovah is called the only true God, we can conclude that either the angels and human judges are “false gods” or a part of the trinity with Jesus (hence, not really a trinity) or we can understand how “true” is used in this case–as in, “rightly so called” (“true courage”; “a spirit which true men have always admired”; “a true friend”)

    October 9, 2008 at 2:45 am#110045
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Tiffany @ Oct. 09 2008,06:01)

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,13:25)

    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 great
    er, 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 h
    istorical 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


    I had a lenghty post ready for you, but I changed my mind. All I am going to do, is dust of my shoes. Good bye.


    thats what I thought…. :)

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 9, 2008 at 3:34 am#110046
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,07:31)
    I am Glad that you admit the Father who is Spirit is invisible and Yahshua is the “visible image of God”.


    What?

    You have got to be kidding.

    I have been preaching this since the beginning and repeatedly.

    You are either not listening or you just come up with phrases like that to make me look bad to paint yourself in a better light.

    Reading that just puts me off reading the rest of your post.

    TIP: If you are going to say something, make sure you research your facts.

    This probably goes some way to explaining why you appear to not understand what we say. I think you are not even reading what you are replying to in the first place. Or perhaps you have a very bad memory. If that is the case then that is not your fault and that is OK.

    October 9, 2008 at 3:50 am#110047
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    To E.

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 08 2008,11:17)

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

    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


    Quote
    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.


    It is not I who say this but scripture.

    Scripture applies theos to the judges of Israel, Jesus even said “ye are theos” so your argument is not with me E, but with scripture and Jesus who said these words. My reply to you is to just get use to the idea it is the reality of scripture. It is you who needs to accomodate this, not for scripture to change. Elohim a word often translated as theos is even applied to the angels.

    Quote
    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.


    What does that prove? It proves that the God in scripture is not a Trinity, therefore the Trinity is a derived understanding and not taught in scripture. Interestingly enough, if you believe that God the Father is the Most High God, then substituting God with Father doesn't break the verses like the word Trinity does. So at least from a scriptural standpoint, God is the Father as we have been saying all along.

    Quote
    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.


    I am not saying you need to, I am pointing out that 3 persons in English is “them”, not “him”. Unless of course you want to speak roolly rooly bad englush. But your grammar teacher at school would mark you down for calling 3 persons “him”.

    October 9, 2008 at 8:32 am#110057
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 08 2008,15:24)
    Hi WJ,
    I just wanted to clear something up.  If I understand you correctly, you do not believe in all the statements of the trinity doctrine, right?  If so, then you would agree that the trinity doctrine is false, right?  If it is only partly correct and not completely correct, it has to be false, IMO.
    LU


    Hi LU

    That is a good question?

    But your logic is flawed. In fact if you will check Ken's And Pauls writings, (who goes by the name Isa 1:18), against mine you will find that we agree about 99.9 percent of the time on the concept of the Trinity.

    Can you show me any others on this sight that have this kind of unity in the faith conerning the nature of the Father, the Son and the Spirit? Is there any better than that?

    You have Jesus is an Angel incarnate, he is a mere man like the rest of us, he is a begotten God, God had sex with Mary, God imparted his own semon or DNA, Jesus is a god like other gods, he is a demi-god (part man and part god), he was born from the Fathers womb, and on and on.

    How many Henotheist, Unitarians, Arians, or Polytheist accept the Jesus you teach as your Lord and God who is to be bowed down to and worshipped? How many agree with your doctrine?

    Whats funny is all those who do not agree concerning which view of Jesus is right, still give each other high fives against a Trinitarian. Even when we speak on other subjects that they agree on they dare give credit where credit is due because they may appear to be associating with a Trinitarian.

    How sad.

    You may notice that I give credit to anyone including t8 when I believe somewone is speaking truth, no matter what their doctrinal differences are. But Trinitarians are marked as being false no matter what. I wonder why?

    David a JW who is against most everything any of you believe gets a free pass on most of what he writes here.

    So by your reasoning then your doctrine on the nature of God and the Son is false also, because others do not believe as you do.

    The main point of the Trinity is Yeshua is “The True God”, (John 1:1, John 1:18, 1 John 5:20)one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Heb 1:3, Col 1:17) and that this “One True God”, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is our God.

    There is One God, Three persons and One Spirit!

    No other conclusion can be drawn using all scriptural data.

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

    From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.  2 Peter 1:1 NET

    …as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13

    Exd 20:3
    Thou shalt have “no other gods” before me.

    Exd 23:13
    And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and “make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth”.

    Blessings WJ

    October 9, 2008 at 8:37 am#110058
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:32)
    While in the ministry, I've only met a few priests, ministers, etc.  
    Rather than discuss scripture, they often seem to like to state what they believe and then point to the pile of books they've read as confirmation that what they believe is right.
    At that point, I feel like suggesting that perhaps he had been reading the wrong books.


    Hi David

    You mean like the “Watch Tower”? ???

    WJ

    October 9, 2008 at 8:45 am#110059
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Hi David

    Quote (david @ Oct. 09 2008,11:52)

    IT IS FALSE LOGIC AND JUST WRONG THINKING TO ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THERE IS “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” THAT EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS CALLED GOD IS EITHER A PART OF THAT GODHEAD OR FALSE.

    Ok, but I have asked you and t8 to present your unambiguous scriptural evidence for this statement without any reply.

    Here Ill post it again…

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,13:14)
    Can you tell me where this definition for “theos” comes from?

    Since t8 believes the same as the JWs here then maybe you can list some scriptures to prove these statements.

    t8 only list John 10 which can be read as a derogatory statement about evil and wicked kings. Ambiguous.

    I would like to see how you come to this opinion using scriptures.

    Thanks! WJ

    Please spare me of pages of apologetics and just give me some scriptures.

    Thanks WJ

    October 9, 2008 at 9:06 am#110060
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 09 2008,15:50)

    What does that prove? It proves that the God in scripture is not a Trinity, therefore the Trinity is a derived understanding and not taught in scripture. Interestingly enough, if you believe that God the Father is the Most High God, then substituting God with Father doesn't break the verses like the word Trinity does. So at least from a scriptural standpoint, God is the Father as we have been saying all along.

    This is so silly.

    Here lets play “change the scriptures” …

    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 (Father), The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6

    So the Father was born?

    But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O (Father), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Heb 1:8

    So the Father said to his Father?

    And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my (Father).

    So Thomas called Yahshua his Father? We have no record of any of the 12 before Yahshuas crucifixtion calling God their Father.

    So it does break the verse unlike the untruth you just stated.

    You can make the scriptures say what you want t8, and it is evidence you do by denying obvious scriptures claiming Yahshua to be “True God”

    WJ

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1,661 through 1,680 (of 26,000 total)
123…838485…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