Home Christian Writings Supporting the Trinity Doctrine? – The Trinity Doctrine John 1:1 Page 95

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 - 1,881 through 1,900 (of 26,007 total)
123…949596…1,2991,3001,301
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm#110978
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 24 2008,13:48)
    Hi GB,
    Only some translations has these words added in 1 jn5.
    Suggest a better translation that does not contain such additions.


    Nick….i know that, but the same analogy can be drawn from what Jesus said and can amount to the same thing, GOD and His Word and His Spirit are truly one and the same. You can not separate GOD from His WORD or SPIRIT no more then you can separate your words from you. It is your words that define who and what you are and it's the same with GOD. So while that scripture may have been added it's still true. imo

    October 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm#110985
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi GB,
    So something added by men can be as useful as truth?

    October 24, 2008 at 11:16 pm#111029
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 24 2008,17:27)

    Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2008,04:22)
    Hi all……..if we take some of the things Jesus said into count it may help clarify John 1:1. Lets conceder  John 6:63….> It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing; the (WORDS) that I speak unto you, (ARE) spirit and (ARE) life. and John 4:24…> God is (A) Spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. So if we conceder that GOD is SPIRIT and the WORD is SPIRIT, then they are one in the same. So John does mean that the WORD is GOD, and to the degree His words are in you is God in you, because the word of GOD is GOD. Jesus could easily say the Father was in Him, how by the words in Him and we can also say the same thing. That why Jesus could also say ”  I in you and you in me, it's through the words of GOD in both Him and us, it puts us all together in GOD.

    love and peace to all…………..gene


    Hi brother Gene,
    That is so wonderful as you have explained the 'word of God' as His Spirit working in Jesus as well as in us. The 'word' is an expression of same One God which was in Jesus was doing mighty things according to God's purpose.

    Thanks and peace to you
    Adam


    Question is was He A Being? Since the Word became flesh? He was a Spirit like our Heavenly Father is. And to that glory He became again after He died for us.
    John 17:5 ” And now O Father, glorfy Me together with Yourself, with the glory I had with You BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.”
    Notice He did not say I became your Spirit.

    Peace anc Love Irene

    October 25, 2008 at 12:52 am#111031
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 25 2008,05:23)
    Hi GB,
    So something added by men can be as useful as truth?


    Hi N…. could it be that rather than men (supposedly, allegedly) “adding” something to God's truth, that some men are “detracting” from it?

    Do you always answer questions with questions?

    Did you know that
    `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe….?

    Do you consider yourself a modern day Socrates?

    Why do you answer with questions?

    Do you think that is more profound than answering questions directly?

    Do you think that by doing so you are causing people to come to their own conclusions and that they may then cease to believe in profoundly biblical like the trinity simply because you answer with a question?

    oh…. btw, found something for you…. I just bet you have never seen this before~!! lol… well, since you probabkly have, this is for any lurkers out there who maybe haven't…. ok?

    (had to end with another question…. do you see the irony? 😉 )

    Trinity

    As the nature of God is progressively revealed in Scripture, the one God is seen to exist eternally in three persons. These three persons share the same divine nature yet are different in role and relationship. The basic principle at the heart of God's triune being is unity and distinction, both coexisting without either being compromised. Anything that is necessarily true of God is true of Father, Son, and Spirit. They are equal in essence yet distinct in function.

    The doctrine of the Trinity is most fully realized in the NT where the divine Father, Son, and Spirit are seen accomplishing redemption. But while the NT gives the clearest picture of the Trinity, there are hints within the OT of what is yet to come. In the beginning of the Bible, the Spirit of God is “hovering over the face of the waters” at creation (Gen. 1:2) and is elsewhere described as a personal being, possessing the attributes of God and yet distinct from Yahweh (Isa. 48:16; 61:1; 63:10). Some interpreters think that the plurality within God is seen in the Hebrew word for God, ’Elohim, which is plural in form (though others disagree that this is significant; the word is used with singular verbs and all agree that it has a singular meaning in the OT). In addition, the use of plural pronouns when God refers to himself hints at a plurality of persons: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’” (Gen. 1:27; cf. Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). The plurality of God also seems to be indicated when the Angel of the Lord appears in the OT as one who represents Yahweh, while yet at times this angel seems to be no different in attributes or actions from God himself (cf. Gen. 16:7, 10–11, 13; 18:1–33; Ex. 3:1–4:31; 32:20–22; Num. 22:35, 38; Judg. 2:1–2; 6:11–18). There are also passages in the OT that call two persons God or Lord: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions” (Ps. 45:6–7). David says, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” (Ps. 110:1). The God who is set above his companions (Ps. 45:6) and the Lord of Psalm 110:1 are recognized as Christ in the NT (Heb. 1:8, 13). Christ himself applies Psalm 110:1 to himself (Matt. 22:41–46). Other passages give divine status to a messianic figure distinct from Yahweh (Prov. 8:22–31; 30:4; Dan. 7:13–14).

    The OT glimpses of God's plurality blossom into the full picture of the Trinity in the NT, where the deity and distinct personalities of Father, Son, and Spirit function together in perfect unity and equality (on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, see The Person of Christ). Perhaps the clearest picture of this distinction and unity is Jesus' baptism, where the Son is anointed for his public ministry by the Spirit, descending as a dove, with the Father declaring from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:13–17). All three persons of the Trinity are present, and each one is doing something different.

    The NT authors employ a Trinitarian cadence as they write about the work of God. Prayers of blessing and descriptions of gifts within the body of Christ are Trinitarian in nature: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14); “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone” (1 Cor. 12:4–6). The persons of the Trinity are also linked in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19–20, “baptizing them in [or into] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” There are many other passages that reveal the Trinitarian, or at least the plural, nature of God (e.g., John 14:16, 26; 16:13–15; 20:21–22; Rom. 8:9; 15:16, 30; 2 Cor. 1:21–22; Gal. 4:4–6; Eph. 2:18; 4:4–6; 1 Pet. 1:1–2; 1 John 4:2, 13–14; Jude 20–21).

    Differences in roles also appear consistently in biblical testimonies concerning the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The uniform pattern of Scripture is that the Father plans, directs, and sends; the Son is sent by the Father and is subject to the Father's authority and obedient to the Father's will; and both Father and Son direct and send the Spirit, who carries out the will of both. Yet this is somehow consistent with equality in being and in attributes. The Father created through the Son (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and the Father planned redemption and sent the Son into the world (John 3:16; Rom. 8:29; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:3–5). The Son obeyed the Father and accomplished redemption for us (John 4:34; 5:19; 6:38; Heb. 10:5–7; cf. Matt. 26:64; Acts 2:33; 1 Cor. 15:28; Heb. 1:3). The Father did not come to die for our sins, nor did the Holy Spirit, but that was the role of the Son. The Father and Son both send the Holy Spirit in a new way after Pentecost (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7). These relationships existed eternally (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; Rev. 13:8), and they provide the basis for simultaneous equality and differences in various human relationships.

    Within God there is both unity and diversity: unity without uniformity, and diversity without division. The early church saw this Trinitarian balance clearly. For example, the Athanasian Creed (c. a.d. 500) says:

    We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. . . . The entire three persons are co-eternal and co-equal with one another, so that . . . we worship complete unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.

    This unity and diversity is at the heart of the great mystery of the Trinity. Unity without uniformity is baffling to finite minds, but the world shows different types of reflections of this principle of oneness and distinction at every turn. What is the source of the transcendent beauty in a symphony, the human body, marriage, ecosystems, the church, the human race, a delicious meal, or a perfectly executed fast break in basketball? Is it not, in large part, due to the distinct parts coming together to form a unified whole, leading to a unified result? Unity and distinction—the principle at the heart of the Trinity—can be see
    n in much of what makes life so rich and beautiful. Woven into the fabric of the world are multiple reflections of the One who made it with unity and distinction as the parallel qualities of its existence.
    Historical Misunderstandings of the Trinity

    One of the most fundamental ways to misunderstand the Trinity is tritheism, which overemphasizes the distinction between the persons of the Trinity and ends up with three gods. This view neglects the oneness of the natures of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At the other end of the spectrum is the heresy of modalism (also known as Sabellianism, named after its earliest proponent, Sabellius, 3rd century), which loses the distinctions between the persons and claims that God is only one person. In this view, the appearance of the three persons is merely three modes of existence of the one God. For instance, God reveals himself as Father when he is creating and giving the law, as Son in redemption, and as Spirit in the church age. A contemporary version of modalism is found in the teaching of Oneness Pentecostalism. Both tritheism and modalism fail to maintain the biblical balance between the one reality of God and his eternal existence in three persons. A third error is to deny the full deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to say that they were at some time created. This is the heresy of Arianism (after a teacher named Arius, c. a.d. 256–336), and it is held today by Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Practical Implications of the Trinity

    What are some of the practical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity?

    1. The doctrine of the Trinity makes definitive revelation of God possible as he is known in Christ: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known” (John 1:18). No man can see God and live (Ex. 33:20; 1 Tim. 6:16), but God the Son provided an actual manifestation of God in the flesh.

    2. The Trinity makes the atonement possible. Redemption of sinful man is accomplished through the distinct and unified activity of each person of the Godhead: “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14).

    3. Because God is triune, he has eternally been personal and relational in his own being, in full independence from his creation. God has never had any unmet needs, “nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25). Personhood becomes real only within realized relationships, and the reality of relationship can only exist where one has something or someone that is not oneself to relate to; if, then, God had not been plural in himself he could not have been a personal, relational God till he had begun creating, and thus would have been dependent on creation for his own personhood, which is a notion as nonsensical as it is unscriptural. Between the persons of the Trinity, there has always existed total relational harmony and expression; God is, from this standpoint, a perfect society in himself. Apart from the plurality in the Trinity, either God's eternal independence of the created order or his eternally relational personal existence would have to be denied.

    4. The Trinity provides the ultimate model for relationships within the body of Christ and marriage (1 Cor. 11:3; 12:4–6; Eph. 4:4–7).

    The doctrine of the Trinity is well beyond human ability to ever fully comprehend. However, it is central to understanding the nature of God and the central events in the history of salvation, in which God is seen acting as, in effect, a tripersonal team. Biblical Christianity stands or falls with the doctrine of the Trinity.
    The Person of Christ

    Four statements must be understood and affirmed in order to attain a complete biblical picture of the person of Jesus Christ:

    1. Jesus Christ is fully and completely divine.
    2. Jesus Christ is fully and completely human.
    3. The divine and human natures of Christ are distinct.
    4. The divine and human natures of Christ are completely united in one person.

    The Deity of Christ

    Many passages of Scripture demonstrate that Jesus is fully and completely God:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1, 14).

    No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:18).

    Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).

    To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 9:5).

    Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:5–7).

    . . . waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).

    He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3).

    But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” . . . And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Heb. 1:8, 10).

    Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1).

    Jesus' Understanding of His Own Deity

    Even though the passages cited above clearly teach the deity of Christ, this truth is often challenged. Some say that Jesus never claimed to be God and that these verses were written by his disciples who deified him because of the impact he had on their lives. Jesus, it is claimed, only saw himself as a great moral teacher on a par with other religious leaders. However, Jesus' understanding of his own deity in the Gospels does not support this perspective. He clearly saw himself as God. This can be seen primarily in six ways.

    1. Jesus taught with divine authority. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:28–29). The teachers of the law in Jesus' day had no authority of their own. Their authority came from their use of earlier authorities. Even Moses and the other OT prophets and authors did not speak in their own authority, but would say, “This is what the Lord says.” Jesus, on the other hand, interprets the law by saying, “You have heard that it was said. . . . But I say to you” (see Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). This divine authority is shown with staggering clarity when he speaks of himself as the Lord who will judge the whole earth and will say to the wicked, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23). No wonder the crowd was amazed at the authority with which Jesus spoke. Jesus recognized that his words carried divine weight. He acknowledged the permanent authority of the law (Matt. 5:18) and put his words on an equal plane with it: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

    2. Jesus had a unique relationship with God the Father. When he was a young boy, Jesus sat with the religious leaders in the temple, amazing people with the answers he gave. When his distraught parents finally found their “lost” adolescent, he replied
    by saying, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” (Luke 2:49). Jesus' reference to God as “my Father” is a radical statement of a unique, intimate relationship with God, of which he was already fully conscious. Such a reference by an individual was unprecedented in Jewish literature. Jesus took this unique personal address to another level by referring to God the Father using the affectionate Aramaic expression ’Abba’.

    3. Jesus' favorite self-designation was the title Son of Man. The phrase “a son of man” could mean merely “a human being.” But Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (implying the unique, well-known Son of Man), which indicates that he sees himself as the Messianic Son of Man in Daniel 7 who is to rule over the whole world for all eternity:

    I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13–14).

    Jesus establishes his divine authority as the glorious Messianic Son of Man by declaring that he has the power to forgive sin and is Lord of the Sabbath: “‘But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic—‘I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home’” (Mark 2:10–11); “And he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath’” (Mark 2:27–28).

    4. Jesus' teaching emphasized his own identity. Jesus came teaching the kingdom of God, and in it he was the King. His teaching dealt with many topics but was centrally about himself. His question to his disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15), is the ultimate question of his ministry.

    5. Jesus received worship. Perhaps the most radical demonstration of Jesus' belief that he was God is the fact that when he was worshiped, as he sometimes was, he accepted that worship (Matt. 14:33; 28:9, 17; John 9:38; 20:28). If Jesus did not believe he was God, he should have vehemently rejected being worshiped, as Paul and Barnabas did in Lystra (Acts 14:14–15). That a monotheistic Jew like Jesus accepted worship from other monotheistic Jews shows that Jesus realized that he possessed a divine identity.

    6. Jesus equated himself with the Father, and as a result the Jewish leaders accused him of blasphemy:

    But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God (John 5:17–18).

    Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” [a clear allusion to the sacred divine name of Yahweh; cf. Ex. 3:14]. So they picked up stones to throw at him (John 8:58–59).

    “I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. . . . The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:30–33).

    Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” [a reference to Daniel 7; see point 3 above]. And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death (Mark 14:61–64).

    Implications of Christ's Deity

    Because Jesus is God, the following things are true:

    1. God can be known definitively and personally in Christ: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known” (John 1:18); “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

    2. Redemption is possible and has been accomplished in Christ: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

    3. In Christ risen, ascended and enthroned we have a sympathetic high priest who has omnipotent power to meet our needs: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:15).

    4. Worship of and obedience to Christ is appropriate and necessary.

    Historical Misunderstandings of Christ's Deity

    The earliest and most radical denial of the deity of Christ is called Ebionism or Adoptionism, which was taught by a small Jewish-Christian sect in the first century. They believed that the power of God came on a man named Jesus to enable him to fulfill the Messianic role, but that Christ was not God. A later and more influential Christological heresy was Arianism (early 4th century), which denied the eternal, fully divine nature of Christ. Arius (c. 256–336) believed Jesus was the “first and greatest of created beings.” Arius's denial of Jesus' full deity was rejected at the Council of Nicea in 325. At this council, Athanasius showed that according to Scripture Jesus is fully God, being of the same essence as the Father.” (ESVSTUDYBIBLE)

    October 25, 2008 at 1:14 am#111032
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Oh… and this is really good too….. and N… especially, note your very common “questions” as they are addressed under the section entitled “categorical fallacies”…. I was really amazed at how directly this refers to and refutes your oft repeated “objections”…. :)

    “Basic Arian Arguments

    After spending over thirty years studying such Arian cults as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way International, etc., it is obvious that most of them have never studied logic, philosophy, Hebrew, Greek, hermeneutics, history, or linguistics. Most of their arguments are erroneous on the simple basis of logic. A brief summary of the more glaring fallacies is as follows:

    1.  Circular Reasoning: If you begin with the assumption that the Trinity is not true, and then proceed to conclude that the Trinity is not true, you have assumed in your premise what you are attempting to prove in your conclusion.

    For example, when we point to a passage in the Apostolic Fathers where the Trinity doctrine in clearly in view, some Arians will respond, “That is not possible because the Trinity was not invented until many centuries later.” They, thus, ignore the evidence by arguing in a circle:

    Since the early Church did not believe in the Trinity, then there cannot be any references to the Trinity in the early Church.

    Since there are no references to the Trinity in the early Church, therefore the early Church did not believe in the Trinity.

    Another example of circular reasoning is:
    Since the New Testament never calls Jesus “God,” then there cannot be any verses where he is called “God.”

    Since there are no verses which call Jesus “God,” then the New Testament never calls Jesus “God.”

    Circular reasoning is invalid regardless of who is doing it.

    2.  Undistributed Middle Term: If you argue that if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C, you are giving a valid argument. But if you argue A implies B and C implies D, then A implies D, your argument is invalid because the middle term B is not distributed in both the first and second premises. This is the root fallacy underlying all the pagan source arguments. You cannot jump from the pagan sources over to the Bible because there is no middle term to link the two together.

    3.  Categorical Fallacies: Whenever you hear such questions as:

    “If Jesus was God, who ran the universe the three days he was dead?”

    “If God cannot be tempted, why was Jesus tempted?”

    “If Jesus was God, then to whom did he pray?”

    “Since Jesus did not know when he was coming back, how can he be God?”

    “How can Jesus have faith in God if he was God?”

    “Why would Jesus call the Father God if he himself was God?

    “If Jesus was God, how could he die?

    Such questions arise only if you fail to distinguish between the categories of the economical and ontological Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the three persons in the Trinity. They are called “nonsense questions” in logic.

    4.  Arguments from silence: When Arians challenge Trinitarians to show them where the word “Trinity” is found in the Bible, where Jesus said, “I am God” in the New Testament, etc., they are arguing from silence.

    5.  Straw man argument: Why do Arians keep defining the Trinity as “three gods”? Because it is easy to knock down such a straw man. Why do they give the following argument on John 1:1? Someone who is with another person cannot also be that other person.

    Do Trinitarians maintain that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one person? No. Do Trinitarians interpret John 1:1 to mean that Jesus and the Father are one person? No. Then why does the Watchtower waste everyone’s time by proving that there is only one God and refuting the idea that two persons can be one person? Because it is easier to refute a straw man of your own creation than to deal honestly with Trinitarian arguments.

    6.  Arguments from ignorance: It is sheer ignorance to use pre-archeological and pre-Dead Sea Scroll nineteenth century arguments against the Trinity. For example, the claim is still made that the early Jews did not use “Lord” (κύριος) as a title for God.

    7.  Arguments of false cause: Claiming that the Trinity doctrine was derived from pagan sources, from the Emperor Constantine, etc.

    8.  Appeal To Misery: Some Arians appeal to the misery and suffering they have endured over the centuries at the hands of Trinitarians as proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

    9.  Ad Hominem Arguments: Arians often malign the character and motives of Trinitarian theologians by calling them crooks, thieves, racketeers, devilish, etc. This is malicious as well as invalid.

    10.  Hidden assumptions: For example, let us examine the question, “If Jesus was God, who ran the universe the three days he was dead?”

    First, the person who asks this question assumes that the Trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus is the entire Godhead. But what Trinitarian would say this?

    Second, he assumes that death means extinction or annihilation. This is the false doctrine of “soul sleep.”

    Third, he assumes that, if Jesus was non-existent for three days, then the entire Godhead was non-existent for three days. And, if God did not exist for three days, who ran the universe while he was non-existent?

    Since the hidden assumptions are erroneous, is it any wonder that the conclusions are false as well?

    11.  Self-contradictory Arguments: When the Watchtower Society describes the Arian Controversy at the beginning of the third century, sometimes it states that Arius was reacting to an already established Trinity doctrine. They even describe the Trinitarian Bishops running from the church with their fingers in their ears when they heard the blasphemous ideas of Arius. They define the Nicene Creed and the others creeds which followed as “Trinitarian.” Athanasius represented the majority view.

    But in another place, they claim that the Trinity doctrine was not invented until the ninth century and, thus, there were no Trinitarians in the third century. The Nicene Creed and even the Athanasian Creed were not Trinitarian. Athanasius represented a minority view. Evidently, they can contradict themselves without the least embarrassment.

    Another example of convoluted reasoning is the Watchtower’s argument that since the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, therefore, the doctrine is not in the Bible. But then they turn around and claim that Plato taught the Trinity, even though the word “trinity” does not appear in Plato’s’ writings. If we were to follow their convoluted reasoning, then Plato did not teach the Trinity either.

    12.  Out of Date Arguments: The Unitarians during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries produced the most scholarly attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity in the history of the Arianism. Modern anti-Trinitarians for the most part still heavily rely on these arguments because it is assumed that they are still valid.
    
    But the rise of the sciences of archeology and critical analysis has invalidated most of these old arguments. The only ones still using them are those Arians who still depend on nineteenth century Unitarianism.

    Having pointed out the basic kinds of logical fallacies which underlie most Arian arguments, we will now deal with those arguments which are still being used by such Arian cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Objection #1 The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true because no one can fully comprehend or explain it.

    The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses) is the largest and most aggressive Arian cult in modern times. In its booklet Should You Believe In The
    Trinity? The Society argues that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be a true because it is “beyond the grasp of human reason.”

    They go on to ask:
    …would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?

    They conclude the Trinity cannot be true because it ends in mystery. But when we turn to their main reference work, Aid To Bible Understanding, we find that they admit that they believe in many such things as the infinite nature of Jehovah even though:
    The human mind…cannot actually comprehend the infinity of Jehovah’s existence.

    We are at once confronted with a double standard. If it is true that incomprehensibility refutes the Trinity, then it should also equally refute “the infinity of Jehovah’s existence.” The attempt of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to have their cake and eat it too, dooms their argument. (For the proof that the incomprehensibility of God is a biblical doctrine found in both the Old and New Testaments, see chapter 6.)

    Objection #2 Why should God be Three instead of One? How can God be One and Three at the same time?

    Trinitarians readily admit that the Trinity is beyond our finite capacity to understand or explain Him in an exhaustive sense. There is simply nothing in this world which is one and three at the same time, in the same sense in which God is One and Three. The Trinity is incomprehensible.
    Modern cultists and liberal theologians join hands at this point and declare that, if no one can fully understand or explain the Trinity, then it is nonsense at its worst and error at its best. They may have different reasons for saying this, but they are united on this point.

    Trinitarians admit that they do not have all the answers. But neither does anyone else. When anti-Trinitarians ask, “Why should God be Three Persons instead of One Person?” Trinitarians can just as easily ask, “Well, why should God be One Person instead of Three Persons?” The sword cuts both ways.

    Obviously, no one can explain WHY or HOW God is what He is. He existed long before we were around and He is what He is regardless whether we can fully understand or explain Him.

    Obviously, any god which man could fully understand and explain would be less than what man is. Such a god would not be worthy of our worship, awe or praise. The inescapable truth is that God will always be greater than our finite capacity to understand or explain Him.

    Our failure to understand or explain fully the Trinity or any other aspect of God is not due to some defect in God or in His revelation. The “defect,” if it can be called that, is nothing more or less that the reality of our own finiteness.

    Objection #3 The Trinity is irrational. It is not in accord with human Reason.

    When Arians bitterly complain that the trinity cannot be true because it is not “rational,” i.e., it cannot be fully explained to their satisfaction, they are using the same old tired arguments developed by the Socinians in the 16th and 17th centuries. The vaunted rationalism of that age may be long gone but its anti-Trinitarian arguments remain.”
    Morey, R. A. (1996). The Trinity : Evidences and Issues (479). Iowa Falls, IA.: World Pub.

    EXCELLENT stuff!!! Addresses many many posts here….

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 25, 2008 at 1:34 am#111033
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    He continues, and please note, while some of this may be of special interest to david, it will be applicable to others not specifically claiming to be JW's, simply because others often use JW arguments, so please do not dismiss anything simply because it seems to address JW's specifically, the arguments (either pro or con) might apply to your own beliefs, so don't discount them out of hand:

    “II. Historical Arguments
    Objection #4 The word “Trinity” does not appear in the early Church. Thus, they did not believe in the Trinity.

    Since this is an argument from silence, it is logically invalid. All you can prove from silence is silence. But since this is a favorite argument of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is important to point out that the word “Jehovah” first appeared in Europe in the late Middle Ages as an erroneous translation of YHWH.

    If we are to date the doctrine of the trinity according to when the word “trinity” first appeared, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, then we must date the appearance of Jehovah to the Middle Ages! the Arians are clearly guilty of committing the logical fallacy of dating an idea by it final terminology.

    Objection #5 Since the Nicene Creed does not state that the Holy Spirit is a person or God, then it is clear that the early Church did not believe that the Holy Spirit was a person or God.

    Once again, this is an argument from silence. To claim that the early Church did not believe in the deity or personhood of the Holy Spirit because it was not dealt with at that time is illogical.

    We must also point out that after stating that they believed in the Father and in the Son, the Nicene Fathers went on to say, “We believe in the Holy Spirit.” Obviously, the Holy Spirit was affirmed as part of the core beliefs of Christianity.

    Since the issue which caused the Nicene Council to convene was Arius’ denial of the deity of Christ, they did not deal with the issue of the Holy Spirit. But as soon as that issue was resolved, they did in fact convene the Council of Constantinople which reaffirmed that the Church had always worshipped the Holy Spirit as the third Person in the Holy trinity:
    In the initial stages of the Arian controversy, up to about the middle of the fourth century, the status of the Holy Spirit was not a central issue; the creed approved by the Council of Nicaea in 325 powerfully emphasized the consubstantiability of the Son with the Father but concluded with the simple, traditional affirmation, “And we believe in the Holy Spirit.” By the time that the Council of Constantinople terminated the controversy in 381 and promulgated what is today known as the Nicene Creed, the third article had been considerably expanded to read, inter alia, “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life Giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.” these formulations, although not explicitly calling the Spirit “God” or “co-substantial” with the Father and the Son, are nevertheless clear enough in their intention. the Spirit is “Lord” (a divine title) and “life Giver” (i.e., creator), comes forth “from the Father” (as does the Son), is worshipped “with the Father and the Son,” and is the same Spirit in the Old Testament (“who spoke by the prophets”) as in the New.

    Objection #6 The New Testament concepts of God and Christ have been historically traced back to pre-Christian pagan religions and philosophies such as Gnosticism. The concepts of a “virgin birth,” “the redeemer-myth,” and a “dying and rising Savior” are all found in many pre-Christian pagan religions such as the Iranian savior myth. Paul’s Christ was only an imitation of Adonis, Isis, Zeus, etc.

    This is a version of the Werde-Bousset thesis via Bultmann. It is still standard fare in most liberal seminaries and state universities. Several comments are in order.

    First, as Machen, Kim, Yamauchi, Ridderbos, and many other scholars have pointed out, when you ask those who make this claim to give you some clear pre-Christian primary source materials, they don’t produce any. They will quote modern writers such as Bultmann, but they do not provide any primary documentation from pre-Christian sources.

    For example, Bultmann claimed that the pre-Christian Gnostics had a “redeemer-myth” concept that influenced the New Testament’s concept of the person and work of Jesus. Yet, he did not produce any pre-Christian materials to back up his claim. Even his devoted disciple, Schweitz had to admit:
    I even think that, as far as the redeemer-myth (and not merely the gnostic atmosphere) is concerned, cross-fertilization started by and large only in the period after the New Testament and that the New Testament has scarcely been influenced by it.

    The idea of a pre-Christian “redeemer-myth” is itself a myth. As Hengle states:
    In reality there is no gnostic redeemer myth in the sources which can be demonstrated chronologically to be pre-Christian.36
    The same holds true for all the “virgin births,” “savior-myths” and “crucified saviors” which supposedly predate the New Testament. For example, the Iranian “redeemer-myth” has been exposed as a fraud. Quispel comments:
    Everyone now agrees that R. Reitzenstein, when reconstructing the Iranian mystery of salvation, made a mistake when he took Manichean for Iranian fragments and thus antedated the concept of the Saved Savior by a millennium. In other words: this Iranian mystery of salvation was a hoax.

    Since we have already demonstrated that the New Testament is thoroughly Jewish in its concepts of God and the Messiah, we will not deal with the idea any further.

    Not Enough Time

    The fatal problem with all the pagan source arguments is that they require extremely late dates for the New Testament. Why? A sufficient amount of time had to transpire in order for people to forget what Jesus and the apostles really taught. This means that the New Testament could not be written while people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus or the apostles were still alive. If they were still alive, they would have protested the injection of pagan ideas into the New Testament.

    The Unitarians in the nineteenth century understood that they were entirely dependent upon very late dates for the New Testament, particularly the Pauline Epistles. They realized that if the New Testament was written before 70 a.d., when the eyewitnesses were still alive, then the idea that some theologian could get away with contradicting what Christ or the apostles taught, is absurd. Using circular reasoning, they had to give extremely late dates for the New Testament in order to give enough time for all the eyewitnesses to Christ and the apostles to die.

    As early as 1907, John Illingworth points out this error:
    Parallelism in different religions are too readily assumed to be causally connected. Thus the Christian trinity is said to be borrowed from earlier sources. But the critical reestablishment of the early date of the New Testament leaves no room for this and the Patristic tradition attributed the doctrine of Christ to Himself.
    …the doctrine of the trinity is sometimes explained away by a similar misuse of the comparative method.…The possibility of such a supposition was further facilitated by assigning an extravagantly late date to all the writings in the New Testament…But it is now a familiar fact that this radical attempt upon the dates of the documents in question has been abandoned, by all critics who are worthy of the name.

    Yamauchi points out that late dates are assigned to the New Testament by those who desperately need sufficient time for paganism to creep into the Church without anyone noticing:
    It is not altogether coincidental that scholars who assume a Gnostic background for New Testament documents in some case
    s also adopt very late dates for these books, because late dates for these documents would make a stronger case for affinities with Gnosticism. Thus Ruldoph dates Colossians to 80 a.d., Ephesians to the end of the first century, and both the Pastoral and the Johannine Epistles at the beginning of the second century. Koester dates the Pastorals to as late as between 120 and 160 a.d.40
    The internal evidence that the New Testament in its entirety was written before 70 a.d., has been irrefutably demonstrated by the well-known liberal theologian, John A. T. Robinson.41 The external evidence found in Cave Seven of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed that the New Testament was written before 70 a.d.42 thus, the pagan source theory is patently absurd.

    Objection #7 The Christian Church derived its doctrine of the Trinity from pagan religions and from Greek philosophy, particularly Plato.

    This is the same argument as above, but this time applied to the early Church instead of the Bible. While liberals use both arguments, Arian fundamentalistic cults such as the Watchtower Society will avoid the idea that the Bible was corrupted by pagan religions. Instead, they make the claim:
    Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylon and Assyria.43 Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylon, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. After the death of the apostles, such pagan ideas began to invade Christianity.
    
    The Watchtower then “proves” their claim by pictures of three idols of various pagan deities standing together as if they represent the source of the Christian concept of the Trinity. For example, they point to Egyptian idols of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
    
    This argument is based on two very basic logical fallacies. First, it commits the fallacy of equivocation in that the word “Trinity” is being used with several different meanings. the word “Trinity” according to Christian theology refers to one, infinite/personal God eternally existing in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit But the word “trinity” is used by the Arians to refer to any grouping of three finite gods and goddesses. Obviously, there is no logical relationship between three finite gods and the one triune God of Christianity.

    Second, the fallacy of equivocation leads to the categorical fallacy of trying to relate together concepts which have no relationship at all. the following diagram illustrates the radical difference between the trinity and pagan triads:

    THE TRINITY
    one God
    infinite in nature
    infinite in attributes
    omnipotent
    omniscient
    omnipresent
    immutable
    perfect
    good

    PAGAN TRIADS
    three gods & goddesses
    finite in nature
    finite attributes
    impotent
    ignorant of some things
    limited to one place
    mutable
    imperfect
    good and evil

    The Watchtower’s attempt to link the Trinity to pagan triads reveals either that they do not understand the Trinity, or that, if they do, they are being deliberately deceptive.

    The same problem arises when they claim the doctrine of the Trinity came from Plato. They do not indicate where the Trinity can be found in the writings of Plato. They quote from Unitarians and other anti Trinitarians who make the same claim, but nowhere do they quote Plato.

    Since we are quite familiar with Plato and have translated some of his dialogues from the original Greek, we must go on record that we have never found in Plato anything even remotely resembling the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps this is why Arians never give a single reference in Plato’s works to back up their claims.

    Furthermore, we can use one of the Arian arguments against the Trinity Against itself. Does the word “Trinity” ever appear in the writings of Plato? No. Does it appear in Aristotle? No. Does it appear in any pre-Christian pagan writings? No.

    Since the Arians claim that the absence of the word “Trinity” in the Bible means that the concept is not present, then they must admit that since the word “Trinity” does not appear in Greek philosophy or in ancient pagan religions, the concept is not present either.
    If the Arian responds that while the word “Trinity” may not be found in Plato, etc., the concept is there, then the Trinitarians have just as much a right to argue that the concept of the Trinity is in the Bible, even though the word “Trinity” is not found there.

    Objection #8 The early Christians took Plato’s concept of the Demiurge and turned it into their concept of Christ.

    In 1976, the Watchtower published an article entitled “How Christendom Borrowed from Plato.”  In it they claimed that the “early Christians” borrowed their concept of the Trinity from Platonism and used Plato’s Demiurge as their concept of Christ. They have made this claim many times.

    What they fail to tell their readers is that Plato’s Demiurge was a finite being created by God and, thus, not equal to God. The following diagram reveals whose Christ is patterned after the Demiurge.

    The Demiurge
    Platonism
    created
    finite
    not eternal
    not omnipresent
    not omniscient
    not omnipotent
    semi-divine

    Two Views of Christ

    Arianism:
    created
    finite
    not eternal
    not omnipresent
    not omniscient
    not omnipotent
    semi-divine

    Trinitarianism:
    not created
    infinite
    eternal
    omnipresent
    omniscient
    omnipotent
    full deity

    From the above chart, it is clear that it is Arianism that has patterned its view of Christ from Plato’s Demiurge.

    The Watchtower and Greek Philosophy

    The Watchtower has argued that the Trinity doctrine is wrong because “there is but one First Cause.” This argument deserves several comments.
    First, the title of the article from which we just quoted is, “the Three Gods of Religious Racketeers.” It is clear that the Watchtower deliberately misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity as belief in three gods. to add insult to injury, it also uses the ugly ad hominem argument that all Christian clergymen are “racketeers” i.e., thieves.
    Second, The Watchtower magazine uses the phrase “First Cause” as a title for their God on many occasions. See The Watchtower 10/1/59 p.586; 10/15/61 p.614; 1/1/65 p.14; 9/1/70 p.537; 5/15/71 p.304; 1/15/71 p.52; 5/1/79 p.6; 2/15/81 p.5; 10/1/82 p.4; 6/15/93 p.13, etc.

    In a debate, one of the best ways to refute the other side is to use their own arguments against them. In desperation, they will often declare their own arguments invalid! In effect, you get them to refute themselves. Let us apply the same arguments they used against the word “Trinity” to the words “First Cause.”

    Are the words “First Cause” found in the Old Testament? No. Are they found in the New Testament? No. Are they found in the early creeds of the Church such as the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed? No.

    If the Jehovah’s Witnesses applied to the words “First Cause” the same argument that they use concerning the word “Trinity,” then they would have to conclude that the concept of God as the “First Cause” is not a biblical doctrine.

    Where then did the words “First Cause” originate? If we turn to Plato in the Timeaus 455a-b; 465d-466a or the Statesman 587a-589c or to Aristotle in Physics BK VII, chronicles 1-2, 326a-329a; VIII, 334a-355d, we find the pagan Greek philosophers were the ones who invented the phrase “First Cause” to indicate that there can be only one final and ultimate cause for all things and this First Cause of causes must be divine. Aristotle’s argument for the existence of the Unmoved Mover depends entirely on the concept of an ultimate “Fi
    rst Cause.”
    If we were to follow the Watchtower’s convoluted reasoning, we would conclude that the Jehovah’s Witnesses derived their idea of God as the “First Cause” from pagan Greek philosophy!

    Sauce for the Gander and for the Goose

    The Watchtower could argue that the concept of God as the “First Cause” is found in Genesis 1:1, long before there were any Greek philosophers. Thus the use of the phrase has nothing to do with the origin of the concept. They were simply using the common philosophical language of today.

    If they can do this, then so can the Trinitarians. The use of philosophic terms by the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers in their definitions of the Trinity are not to be faulted either. They were simply using the common philosophical terms of their day.

    Faulty Assumptions

    How were the Arians able to turn the concept of God as the “First Cause” into an argument against the Trinity? By assuming that the Trinity means three gods, they concluded that the Trinity would also mean three First Causes! Since you cannot have three “Firsts,” they felt they could use it against the belief in three gods. But,the truth is the trinity doctrine is a statement about one God, and has nothing to do with three gods.

    Just one added note. When Trinitarians show that Christ is called “the First and the Last” (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13) and then link it to Yahweh being “the First and the Last” (Isa. 41:4), the Jehovah Witnesses usually respond by saying that there can be more than one “First and Last.” It would seem that they are attempting to both deny and affirm that there can be only one “First.”
    Morey, R. A. (1996). The Trinity : Evidences and Issues (484). Iowa Falls, IA.: World Pub.”

    Good stuff! I will be suire to keep my eye out for other very informative information for you…. agree… disagree…. its good information….

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 25, 2008 at 1:55 am#111034
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    You say
    “Trinity

    As the nature of God is progressively revealed in Scripture, the one God is seen to exist eternally in three persons.”

    Where is this written?
    Or is this your own idea?

    October 25, 2008 at 1:56 am#111035
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    Are you a trinitarian or a christian?

    October 25, 2008 at 1:58 am#111036
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    You say
    “What are some of the practical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity?”

    Would it not be best first to find this concept taught in scripture?

    October 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm#111069
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    E………I can only tell you this I personnel do not believe in the Trinity or Preexistences at all and have taught against them both. I can also say I have had Many Miracles and proofs of God in my life Hundreds of them, now why would God do that seeing I denounce the TRINITY and preexistences of Jesus openly. Wouldn't that be blasphemy against the spirit, but for some reason God still Hears my prayers and answers them. As for me i will stay with what works. Here is the simple truth, Jesus Quoted, Hear O Israel the LORD our GOD is (ONE) LORD, and again “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD.

    Peace and love ……………..gene

    October 25, 2008 at 7:52 pm#111076
    NickHassan
    Participant

    GB,
    Miracles are not absolute proof af anything.
    Revelation 16:14
    For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

    October 26, 2008 at 2:02 pm#111111
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Nick…..Show us where any Demon as you say saved a sick or dying person ever. Maybe you don't count miracles as proofs, but i do and i think Jesus and Abraham did also as well as the Apostles and Disciples, or do you think God does them for no reason at all, then why do them then? Miracles were very much the sign of God being with them. Do you want me to list them there are probably over a thousand in the scriptures. In fact almost all the bible is a book of Miracles. You can't separate GOD from His miracle working power. Take the miracles out of my life and i would have nothing more then suppositions.

    October 26, 2008 at 6:07 pm#111117
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Gb,
    As you said in another thread such miraculous works are not absolute evidence of anyone's standing with God.

    “Jesus said that many in that day would come to him and say Lord in you name we did all these good works, and he would reply, depart from me you workers of iniquity I know you not. So they certainly had the knowledge of God's words but obviously were not converted. I believe Jesus gave the answer about Faith in the Parable of the unjust Judge. Luk 18:4 Shows that direct proof is given by God to those who seek him as He has said “I am found by those who diligently seek me”. I wonder how many of us may just have supposition and no real Faith at all?,

    October 27, 2008 at 8:15 am#111160
    pulivarthy
    Participant

    Hi Gene & Nick,
    this is my simple reasoning concerning God, spirit and son:

    We, human beings have a pattern/shape/structure made of flesh.In it, blood is made to flow which bears source of life to us,.That means blood is the life to us and causes animation to our structure.
    inference:flesh became a living thing through blood which came through God's breathing.Our procreation /seed also comes through blood(semen production)
    Similarly, God has a unknown structure because size is not known to us.God's structure assumably is similar to us according to the scripture that we were made in his image.As God is spirit, spirit took the role of blood in celestial bodies.as per our procreation , God can carry and create his offspring in spirit only.Therefore, God is carrying his seed ,jesus with him in spirit all the time ever since the unknown past eternity.
    inference: celestial structure similar to us and spirit making that structure a living one, bearing son /seed also.The size of the God' seed , jesus is only debatable.We cannot see the size of our semen with naked eyes.Instead oof semen, God carrying a hidden son in him/spirit invisibly as we carry semen invisibly.
    final combined inference:God=spirit=son, though trinity word is not found in bible.
    wishing you lit up eyes of holy spirit,
    babu

    October 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm#111175
    Not3in1
    Participant

    So, how do we know FOR CERTAIN that the “word” or “Word” spoken of in John 1:1 is in fact………Jesus?

    October 28, 2008 at 9:04 am#111209
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 26 2008,07:52)
    GB,
    Miracles are not absolute proof af anything.
    Revelation 16:14
    For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.


    Hi brother Nick,
    Why do go into such criticism on brothers ? Please be kind and considerate to all.

    Thanks and love to you
    Adam

    October 31, 2008 at 4:07 pm#111289
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 28 2008,02:17)
    So, how do we know FOR CERTAIN that the “word” or “Word” spoken of in John 1:1 is in fact………Jesus?


    Mandy…….we don't and they don't know either, if John wanted to say Jesus He would simply said Jesus, it Just that simple. A Word is simply an expression of intellect. And it is with GOD (power) and was GOD (power) and by it all things came into being.

    According to Jeff Benner God simple means (POWER) and LORD means HE EXISTS, put them together and you get HE EXISTS WITH POWER IE., LORD GOD. There is no reason to try to change the word, (word), to mean anything other then what it simple means, its the expression of the one and only true GOD. imo

    love and peace to you and yours……………gene

    November 1, 2008 at 5:17 am#111300
    gollamudi
    Participant

    Amen to that post brother Gene.

    November 3, 2008 at 12:10 am#111330
    GeneBalthrop
    Participant

    Adam….if we apply Jeff Benners interpretation to John 1:1……> it would be like this …> in the beginning was the word and the word was with Elohim (powers) and the word was Elohim (powers). Elohim simple means (POWERS) we need to remember things were spoken into existence, in the beginning. Benner adds an interesting point to what John may have meant.

    love and peace to you and yours……….gene

    November 3, 2008 at 6:52 am#111337
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Why is this verse so hard to understand?
    First we see that the Word was there in the beginning. That Word was with God. Not that it was God. A separate being. The Word was with God.
    Then we see that that Word became flesh. Now that being is who became Jesus. Then when we look at other Scriptures like Rev. 3:14 and Co. 1:15-16-16-17 it becomes clear that Jesus was very much aware of what was happening. In John 17:5 it shows us that indeed He had a glory like the Father. Precept upon precept, line upon line to show what the truth is.
    Not my interpretation, the Bible interpretes itself, in many places.
    Peace and Love Irene

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1,881 through 1,900 (of 26,007 total)
123…949596…1,2991,3001,301
  • 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