BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: Thomas7 on June 03, 2021, 04:36:30 PM
-
1) Jesus is God The Father
2) Jesus vs yhwh
3) jehovah is the devil
4) 2 coming of Jesus Christ
-
I'm just trying to see where you are coming from here Thomas7. You need to converse instead of just posting videos.
-
I checked a few vids against youtube.
No text summary, and comments disabled.
So to understand the author’s premise, you either have to watch videos, or wait for him to enter into a dialoged exchange.
Also, the authot’s video section has a bunch of extra videos promoting the flat earth theory, fwiw.
-
No, he's not (equal effort, right?).
-
The Father is not the Son is not the Spirit. 3 Persons in 1 Substance. Modalism, or Sabellianism, was found to be a heresy in the Early Church. It has reemerged in recent times through the Oneness Pentecostals, and I don't know who else. But it is an improper way to state the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the one God. But they are distinct Persons, perfectly capable of communicating to each other.
Only distinct persons communicate with one another. We have examples in the Bible of each Person of the Trinity communicating with another member of the Trinity. For example, we have Jesus praying to his Father in heaven.
-
1) Jesus is God The Father
I thought this was settled doctrine as of the year 325? "God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons".
3) jehovah is the devil
Isn't this Marcionism, which is heresy?
-
1) Jesus is God The Father
I thought this was settled doctrine as of the year 325? "God is one God, but three coeternal and consubstantial persons".
3) jehovah is the devil
Isn't this Marcionism, which is heresy?
He Fenris! Marcionism is a form of Gnostic Dualism, whereas Christianity is very unique in its formula, "Three Persons and One Divine Substance. It sounds to outsiders like a Split Personality, but when you consider that we're talking about the God of the OT, the omnipotent Deity, we realize that He must descend through gradations to appear in our finite world.
The vehicle He uses to appear in our world as "Himself" is His Word. His Word created a human body and a human soul to express His infinite Divine Personality. So it's more like two dimensions of the same Being than a Split Personality. But across the dimensions the Father, Son, and Spirit do communicate.
Really, it's no different from what God did in the OT, appearing in theophanies, except they were more like temporary appearances than formation into an eternal human being.
-
I hope you don't mind if I pick through your reply. Just trying to provide room for something to discuss.
It sounds to outsiders like a Split Personality,
It's not so much that it sounds like "split personality" (though you can find people using that), but that it sounds contradictory. The trinity is conceptually incoherent, which is why discussions about it always end up appealing to "mystery".
The problem of the trinity isn't even exclusive to non-Christians. I have many friends who are lifelong, devout Christians, but a lot of them have confessed in private to me that doctrine of the trinity is confusing, nonsensical, or otherwise difficult to accept. It doesn't help them that it's basically non-existent in the Bible. For something that is theologically required to be a Christian, we'd expect it to be more obvious than just a few verses in the New Testament and a whole lot of reader inference everywhere else.
but when you consider that we're talking about the God of the OT, the omnipotent Deity,
Huge parts of the OT describe God like any other ancient Levantine text describes their deities. There are even two stories where God actually fails to protect Israel from their enemies! Not that he withholds protection (as apologists often try to make the stories say), but legitimately promised to do X and did not succeed because of some external factor. In modern theology this idea is impermissible. In ancient Levantine theology, it would have been unfortunate but believable. The idea of God having sheer, literal "omnipotence" came around later on.
we realize that He must descend through gradations to appear in our finite world.
This is actually a rather "Gnostic" way of describing the supreme deity.
His Word created a human body and a human soul to express His infinite Divine Personality.
Could you clarify what you mean here? I've never heard this phrasing outside to describe the "orthodox" view of incarnation. Saying that he "created a human soul" for himself sounds like Nestorianism. I may be misunderstanding the Athanasian Creed, but it says "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ", which seems to mean that his "soul" is deity while his body his human.
-
I hope you don't mind if I pick through your reply. Just trying to provide room for something to discuss.
Don't mind at all.
It's not so much that it sounds like "split personality" (though you can find people using that), but that it sounds contradictory. The trinity is conceptually incoherent, which is why discussions about it always end up appealing to "mystery".
I don't rest my argument on "mystery," although it's certainly a matter transcending the capacity of finite minds to understand fully the Infinite.
The problem of the trinity isn't even exclusive to non-Christians. I have many friends who are lifelong, devout Christians, but a lot of them have confessed in private to me that doctrine of the trinity is confusing, nonsensical, or otherwise difficult to accept. It doesn't help them that it's basically non-existent in the Bible. For something that is theologically required to be a Christian, we'd expect it to be more obvious than just a few verses in the New Testament and a whole lot of reader inference everywhere else.
True, most Christians don't spend 2 hours thinking about the Trinity--not their thing. Some think it's wiser to go on a missionary trip, or pray. Some are thinkers, and recognize the importance of the Trinity to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can't be God, and as such, he can't then redeem us from sin.
Huge parts of the OT describe God like any other ancient Levantine text describes their deities. There are even two stories where God actually fails to protect Israel from their enemies! Not that he withholds protection (as apologists often try to make the stories say), but legitimately promised to do X and did not succeed because of some external factor. In modern theology this idea is impermissible. In ancient Levantine theology, it would have been unfortunate but believable. The idea of God having sheer, literal "omnipotence" came around later on.
Don't agree at all. The language ascribed to Deity recognizes that God is speaking thru anthropomorphisms. God, in other words, acts like a human so that humans can understand Him. Some of Greek philosophy saw Deity as impassible, but the Scriptures portray God as a God of revelation, a God expressing Himself to man through His Word.
we realize that He must descend through gradations to appear in our finite world.
This is actually a rather "Gnostic" way of describing the supreme deity.
I realized that. It's "for lack of an easier way to describe it." I'd hoped you'd understand I'm not expressing Gnosticism, but rather, the matter of transcendence. This is the "gradation" I'm speaking of, going from the Infinite to the finite, and the reverse. An interesting possibel portrayal of this is "Jacob's Ladder," in which angels are seen descending and ascending between heaven and earth.
Jesus used similar terminology here:
John 1.51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”
His Word created a human body and a human soul to express His infinite Divine Personality.
Could you clarify what you mean here? I've never heard this phrasing outside to describe the "orthodox" view of incarnation. Saying that he "created a human soul" for himself sounds like Nestorianism. I may be misunderstanding the Athanasian Creed, but it says "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ", which seems to mean that his "soul" is deity while his body his human.
Actually, Nestorianism was more like that "Split Personality" conception of Christ that I earlier referred to. He tried to put a divine person and a human person together without properly explaining their unity. The heretic Cerinthus, early on, apparently claimed that the "Christ" descended into the man Jesus. This separates the man from his office. The Deity and humanity of Jesus cannot be divided, in orthodoxy.
So what I'm saying is that God has a transcendent omnipotent Personality, and can thus express Himself lower down the chain, in a lower "gradation," in the finite world. To do that His Word must form into the shape of something material and something finite. The human personality of Jesus assumes a finite form, and yet the *idea* expressed is an Infinite one. Jesus, as finite man, is the infinite God. That's what God's Word is expressing here.
-
He Fenris! Marcionism is a form of Gnostic Dualism whereas Christianity is very unique in its formula
Um, that's very nice. But I'm not commenting on Christianity. I'm commenting on the original poster's video "jehovah is the devil", which is Marcionism and not Christianity.
-
RandyPNW said,
True, most Christians don't spend 2 hours thinking about the Trinity--not their thing. Some think it's wiser to go on a missionary trip, or pray. Some are thinkers, and recognize the importance of the Trinity to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can't be God, and as such, he can't then redeem us from sin.
The Trinity doesn't make Jesus God. Jesus had several opportunities to make the claim but never did. My question is where in scripture is it found that Jesus had to be God to redeem us from sin?
-
RandyPNW said,
True, most Christians don't spend 2 hours thinking about the Trinity--not their thing. Some think it's wiser to go on a missionary trip, or pray. Some are thinkers, and recognize the importance of the Trinity to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can't be God, and as such, he can't then redeem us from sin.
The Trinity doesn't make Jesus God. Jesus had several opportunities to make the claim but never did.
Cool, cool. So when the disciples began worshipping Jesus, who apparently never claimed to be God, what do you think was going on there? Jews worshipping a man and a man receiving worship from Jews who knew better than to worship a man, or something else?
-
RandyPNW said,
True, most Christians don't spend 2 hours thinking about the Trinity--not their thing. Some think it's wiser to go on a missionary trip, or pray. Some are thinkers, and recognize the importance of the Trinity to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can't be God, and as such, he can't then redeem us from sin.
The Trinity doesn't make Jesus God. Jesus had several opportunities to make the claim but never did.
Cool, cool. So when the disciples began worshipping Jesus, who apparently never claimed to be God, what do you think was going on there? Jews worshipping a man and a man receiving worship from Jews who knew better than to worship a man, or something else?
There are several examples of worship in the bible where it was to show respect and honor. Worship is simply bowing down to 'someone' showing honor and respect.
The NT word for worship is proskyneō...
____________________________________________________
to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank, to the Jewish high priests, to God, to Christ, to heavenly beings, to demons
_______________________________________________________
Lot worshipped the two angels at Sodom.
Genesis 19:1 "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;"
Moses worshipped Shachah his father in law.
Exodus 18:7 "And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent."
Abigail worshipped David.
1Samuel 25:23 "And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground."
There are other examples.
Genesis 23:7
Then Abraham rose and bowed down [shachah] before the people of the land, the Hittites.
Genesis 33:3
He himself [Jacob] went on ahead and bowed down [shachah] to the ground seven times as he approached his brother [Esau].
Genesis 42:6
Now Joseph was the governor of the land, the one who sold grain to all its people. So when Joseph’s brothers arrived, they bowed down [shachah] to him with their faces to the ground.
Matthew 18:26
“The servant fell on his knees [proskuneo] before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’
-
The Trinity doesn't make Jesus God. Jesus had several opportunities to make the claim but never did. My question is where in scripture is it found that Jesus had to be God to redeem us from sin?
Jimbo, do you trust Scripture? If so, do you believe that Jesus "is" the Word of God?
-
The Trinity doesn't make Jesus God. Jesus had several opportunities to make the claim but never did. My question is where in scripture is it found that Jesus had to be God to redeem us from sin?
Jimbo, do you trust Scripture? If so, do you believe that Jesus "is" the Word of God?
I trust scripture in the original text. Trinity isn't scripture. There's no trinitarian formula in the bible. Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus IS the word of God wouldn't be a Christian. Do you know the developmental history of the Trinity doctrine?
-
I've discussed the Trinity with you before Slug on another forum where I was banned by a mod for being unitarian. In fact, I think I was banned from three forums for being unitarian.
-
So when the disciples began worshipping Jesus, who apparently never claimed to be God, what do you think was going on there? Jews worshipping a man and a man receiving worship from Jews who knew better than to worship a man, or something else?
1 Chronicles 29:20 Then David said to the whole assembly, "Bless the LORD your God." And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD and the king.
Isaiah 60:14 The descendants of those who oppressed you shall come bending low to you, and all who despised you shall worship at your feet; they shall call you the City of the LORD, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
Revelation 3:9 I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying—I will make them come and worship before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.
"Worship" is a choice of the translators. A neutral translation would just be "bow down" or "gave obeisance". The Hebrew and Greek terms are used in other contexts for people bowing down to (human) people as an act of honor. We have plenty of examples where these words 100% do not mean "worship as a deity".
-
1 Chronicles 29:20 Then David said to the whole assembly, "Bless the LORD your God." And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD and the king.
Isaiah 60:14 The descendants of those who oppressed you shall come bending low to you, and all who despised you shall worship at your feet; they shall call you the City of the LORD, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
Revelation 3:9 I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying—I will make them come and worship before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.
"Worship" is a choice of the translators. A neutral translation would just be "bow down" or "gave obeisance". The Hebrew and Greek terms are used in other contexts for people bowing down to (human) people as an act of honor. We have plenty of examples where these words 100% do not mean "worship as a deity".
Are you an ex-JW?
1 Chronicles 29:20 indicates that the assembly worshipped the 'LORD your God' while in the presence of the king of Israel (David or Solomon, your pick), not that the assembly worshipped the 'LORD your God' and also the king of Israel in the same way. The assembly worshipped God and paid homage to the king, perhaps? (Isn't it odd that God would allow His assembly to worship a man?)
This is further made plain in v21 ff with the sacrificing of burnt offerings to the LORD, and alongside the lack of further mention of supposed kingly worship in v22. Besides, we know that David would not have accepted worship rightly belonging to God, nor would he have allowed Solomon to receive such worship, or the assembly to misdirect their worship. It's a surface reading - one example of many poor JW textual proofreadings - that really only works if we ignore everything else about the text.
What we also don't read is an utterance such as the one found in Matthew 14:32 - 33: "And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshipped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'" That is, we don't have the mere worship of Jesus qua prophet (for example), as someone who calmed down strong winds, but worship followed by naming. Of course, you're free to dispute the meaning of 'Son of God' here, but it should be obvious that the appeal to 1 Chronicles 29 is somewhat misguided depending on how the counter-example is meant to be taken.
Anyway, this distinction between different kinds of 'worship' is your point, but it's one that we can simply agree with and ask, 'yes, and?' That 'worship' can mean different things in different contexts doesn't mean that worship in any specific context can't divinely directly or revealing of the divine person worshipped.
So within the context of an example like that found in Matthew 14, why should we view the disciples worship and naming of Jesus as anything other than revealing of Jesus' divinity?
-
RandyPNW said,
True, most Christians don't spend 2 hours thinking about the Trinity--not their thing. Some think it's wiser to go on a missionary trip, or pray. Some are thinkers, and recognize the importance of the Trinity to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can't be God, and as such, he can't then redeem us from sin.
The Trinity doesn't make Jesus God. Jesus had several opportunities to make the claim but never did.
Cool, cool. So when the disciples began worshipping Jesus, who apparently never claimed to be God, what do you think was going on there? Jews worshipping a man and a man receiving worship from Jews who knew better than to worship a man, or something else?
There are several examples of worship in the bible where it was to show respect and honor. Worship is simply bowing down to 'someone' showing honor and respect.
The NT word for worship is proskyneō...
____________________________________________________
to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank, to the Jewish high priests, to God, to Christ, to heavenly beings, to demons
_______________________________________________________
Lot worshipped the two angels at Sodom.
Genesis 19:1 "And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;"
Moses worshipped Shachah his father in law.
Exodus 18:7 "And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent."
Abigail worshipped David.
1Samuel 25:23 "And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground."
There are other examples.
Genesis 23:7
Then Abraham rose and bowed down [shachah] before the people of the land, the Hittites.
Genesis 33:3
He himself [Jacob] went on ahead and bowed down [shachah] to the ground seven times as he approached his brother [Esau].
Genesis 42:6
Now Joseph was the governor of the land, the one who sold grain to all its people. So when Joseph’s brothers arrived, they bowed down [shachah] to him with their faces to the ground.
Matthew 18:26
“The servant fell on his knees [proskuneo] before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’
I'm short on time so see my reply above. I can reply to these specific examples as you like, but they don't really address the example I provided.
-
The most asked question Unitarians get is, "are you JW?" (or an x JW) Most Unitarians in the world are NOT JW. I've also found in the debates I've had that many Trinitarians don't fully understand the Trinity doctrine, and esp., how the doctrine developed.
The word worship in the New and OT is used in reference to deity's, false gods, angels, and people.
This is the translation count of the most common OT word for worship.
Worship - 'šāḥâ'
worship (99x), bow (31x), bow down (18x), obeisance (9x), reverence (5x), fall down (3x), themselves (2x), stoop (1x), crouch (1x), miscellaneous (3x).
to bow down, (Qal) to bow down, (Hiphil) to depress (fig), (Hithpael) ,to bow down, prostrate oneself, before superior in homage, before God in worship, before false gods, before angel.
Daniel uses the Aramaic word - sᵊḡiḏ - for worship and the same is true there. The bottom line is the word is not solely related to worshipping the one true God. People and angels are worshipped and - are they rebuked for it?
sᵊḡiḏ - to prostrate oneself, do homage, worship, to do homage.
I've posted the NT word 'proskuneo' and the same is true there.
-
The most asked question Unitarians get is, "are you JW?" (or an x JW) Most Unitarians in the world are NOT JW. I've also found in the debates I've had that many Trinitarians don't fully understand the Trinity doctrine, and esp., how the doctrine developed.
I wasn't asking you if you were JW/ex-JW as you had mentioned you were Unitarian. I asked agnostic because 1 Chronicles 29:20 is a common talking point when disputing the divinity of Jesus. If he's ex-some-denomination-that-taught-unitarianism then so be it. Or, maybe agnostic is just fond of the example and is neither ex-JW nor ex-some-denomination-that-taught-unitarianism.
But yes, a lot of people who profess Trinitarianism have a poor grasp of Trinitarian doctrine and its history (Patrick!). The same is true of a lot of people who profess to reject Trinitarianism. This fact is neither here nor there with respect to the doctrine proper and its history.
The word worship in the New and OT is used in reference to deity's, false gods, angels, and people.
This is the translation count of the most common OT word for worship.
Worship - 'šāḥâ'
worship (99x), bow (31x), bow down (18x), obeisance (9x), reverence (5x), fall down (3x), themselves (2x), stoop (1x), crouch (1x), miscellaneous (3x).
to bow down, (Qal) to bow down, (Hiphil) to depress (fig), (Hithpael) ,to bow down, prostrate oneself, before superior in homage, before God in worship, before false gods, before angel.
Daniel uses the Aramaic word - sᵊḡiḏ - for worship and the same is true there. The bottom line is the word is not solely related to worshipping the one true God. People and angels are worshipped and - are they rebuked for it?
sᵊḡiḏ - to prostrate oneself, do homage, worship, to do homage.
I've posted the NT word 'proskuneo' and the same is true there.
I'm looking for an explicit comment on my reference to Matthew 14. Given the context, why ought we not understand προσεκύνησαν as indicating divine worship when paired with the naming of Christ as the 'Son of God', especially coming from the disciples of Christ (or, say, the demons and unclean spirits of the Gospel of Mark)?
Pointing out that the word translated as 'worship' can be mean different kinds of acts is just the nature of language. But what's the application in context? Obviously, the context is going to demand a different reading. We could think of Matthew 20:20, where 'προσκυνοῦσα' is in fact translated as 'bowing down', 'kneeling down', etc. So how do you get from the obvious fact that a word can mean different things depending on the context, to the meaning of that word in the context we find it written?
It's curious that you seem to be arguing for the different meanings of 'worship', but then act as if worship means the same kind of worship in every instance it's found. But that's the question I'm asking, isn't it? I'm asking how the nature of worship in X context ought to be understood, and you're pointing out the nature of worship in Y and Z context is different, but not how that applies to X. So why would Jesus accept divinely directed worship, and if not, then what worship do you think the disciples are directing to him? I'd assume you think they're merely bowing down?
-
I've discussed the Trinity with you before Slug on another forum where I was banned by a mod for being unitarian. In fact, I think I was banned from three forums for being unitarian.
Noted.
You also responded with this:
I trust scripture in the original text. Trinity isn't scripture. There's no trinitarian formula in the bible. Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus IS the word of God wouldn't be a Christian. Do you know the developmental history of the Trinity doctrine?
While this is a response, I cannot find an answer to the MAIN part of my question. I pray you did not ignore the specific question about Jesus. I know, to honestly answer that part of the question, you must wrestle with your own theology (that has gotten you booted off of other Bible centered forums). And Yes, I said that to help you realize how critical honesty TO Scripture is required, when seeking the truth.
So I am forced to ask again and wait for an "answer." An answer is "yes or no" and then an explanation OF the answer is always welcome. But, without an "answer," discussion is stalled.
The part you failed to address:
If so, do you believe that Jesus "is" the Word of God?
-
I've discussed the Trinity with you before Slug on another forum where I was banned by a mod for being unitarian. In fact, I think I was banned from three forums for being unitarian.
Noted.
You also responded with this:
I trust scripture in the original text. Trinity isn't scripture. There's no trinitarian formula in the bible. Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus IS the word of God wouldn't be a Christian. Do you know the developmental history of the Trinity doctrine?
While this is a response, I cannot find an answer to the MAIN part of my question. I pray you did not ignore the specific question about Jesus. I know, to honestly answer that part of the question, you must wrestle with your own theology (that has gotten you booted off of other Bible centered forums). And Yes, I said that to help you realize how critical honesty TO Scripture is required, when seeking the truth.
So I am forced to ask again and wait for an "answer." An answer is "yes or no" and then an explanation OF the answer is always welcome. But, without an "answer," discussion is stalled.
The part you failed to address:
If so, do you believe that Jesus "is" the Word of God?
First of all, I answer questions the way I want to answer them. Please, don't tell me how to answer your questions. I've already answered it...
I said, "Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus IS the word of God wouldn't be a Christian"
I'm a believer in Jesus' life, miracles, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension. That's what saves me. Trinity neither saves or condemns anybody. I'm a believer in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and believe he represents God the Father. He's the anointed one who brought God's Word to mankind. That's my answer. If you want to go to John 1:1-5 go for it.
-
I said, "Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus IS the word of God wouldn't be a Christian"
Your response again, doesn't answer the question.
DO YOU, believe that Jesus "is" the Word of God?
-
I said, "Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus IS the word of God wouldn't be a Christian"
Your response again, doesn't answer the question.
DO YOU, believe that Jesus "is" the Word of God?
I answered your question. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer.
-
You never answered my question Slug.
"Do you know the developmental history of the Trinity doctrine?"
-
You never answered my question Slug.
"Do you know the developmental history of the Trinity doctrine?"
I answered your question. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer.
[/size]
I'll standby for your honesty. Because "with it" I can pursue answering you just as openly.
-
You never answered my question Slug.
"Do you know the developmental history of the Trinity doctrine?"
I answered your question. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer.
[/size]
I'll standby for your honesty. Because "with it" I can pursue answering you just as openly.
So you're going to turn this into a game? I clearly answered your question. I just didn't answer it the way you wanted because I don't answer any question the way OTHERS want me to answer them. Same game here as on the other forum. Answer the question big guy! I'm not telling you how to answer. Just answer it any way you like. Yes - no - a detailed explanation, a brief explanation, anything.
-
So you're going to turn this into a game? I clearly answered your question. I just didn't answer it the way you wanted because I don't answer any question the way OTHERS want me to answer them. Same game here as on the other forum. Answer the question big guy! I'm not telling you how to answer. Just answer it any way you like. Yes - no - a detailed explanation, a brief explanation, anything.
I can't answer. I first need to know if I'm speaking with a person who believes that Jesus is the Word of God or does not believe that Jesus is the Word of God. Once I "know" what foundation I am viewing... then edification and maturing can happen through a discussion.
-
So you're going to turn this into a game? I clearly answered your question. I just didn't answer it the way you wanted because I don't answer any question the way OTHERS want me to answer them. Same game here as on the other forum. Answer the question big guy! I'm not telling you how to answer. Just answer it any way you like. Yes - no - a detailed explanation, a brief explanation, anything.
I can't answer. I first need to know if I'm speaking with a person who believes that Jesus is the Word of God or does not believe that Jesus is the Word of God. Once I "know" what foundation I am viewing... then edification and maturing can happen through a discussion.
Are you having trouble understanding what the word ANYONE means? You are leading this discussion into an immature direction and into a waste of time.
Would you rather I use the words any one?
-
Are you having trouble understanding what the word ANYONE means? You are leading this discussion into an immature direction.
Would you rather I use the words any one?
At least I can understand you are committed :-)
Here is the actual verse:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Does "anyone" continue to believe this truth of the Scripture?
-
Are you having trouble understanding what the word ANYONE means? You are leading this discussion into an immature direction.
Would you rather I use the words any one?
At least I can understand you are committed :-)
Here is the actual verse:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Does "anyone" continue to believe this truth of the Scripture?
That's where I asked you to go several replies ago. So you quoted the verse. Now what? There are 70 ways to interpret that verse. Since you are the one quoting the verse, tell me which interpretation you accept and then I'll tell you mine.
-
That's where I asked you to go several replies ago. So you quoted the verse. Now what? There are 70 ways to interpret that verse. Since you are the one quoting the verse, tell me which interpretation you accept and then I'll tell you mine.
70 ways but only one is correct.
Jesus is also God.
I can also post a verse where the Holy Spirit is pointed out as God.
From these truths of Scripture, while the "term" Trinity is not found in the Bible, a Triune God IS revealed by the Word of God.
-
That's where I asked you to go several replies ago. So you quoted the verse. Now what? There are 70 ways to interpret that verse. Since you are the one quoting the verse, tell me which interpretation you accept and then I'll tell you mine.
70 ways but only one is correct.
Jesus is also God.
I can also post a verse where the Holy Spirit is pointed out as God.
From these truths of Scripture, while the "term" Trinity is not found in the Bible, a Triune God IS revealed by the Word of God.
Well, you could have giving me a brief explanation of how you interpret John 1:1. And you could have quoted the verse that you claim the holy spirit is God. And the only verse you've quoted so far is John 1:1. And you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you know how the doctrine of Trinity developed. I don't think you do know.
Most Trinitarians know little to nothing about its development. I've found that when the history of the doctrine is exposed, most Trinitarians are either in denial of its history or they just avoid it altogether.
People believe in Trinity because that's the only side they've been taught. It's like pre-trib. Most people have never heard anything but pre-trib taught in their church. That's all they know so that's all they believe. Those that do know fight it tooth and nail regardless of the mountain of evidence against it. Trinity is a little different. Trinitarians make Jesus into someone he is not and claim he's equal to God. Then they turn the doctrine into the holy grail of Christianity claiming Unitarians are heretics, apostates, cult members, and pass judgment on them claiming they are NOT Christians and condemned.
The Trinity actually makes Jesus a fraud and the cross a hoax. We know that God cannot be tempted and He cannot sin. If Jesus was God that means that he could NOT have been tempted to sin anyway! How do Trinitarians get around that one? The only way they CAN get around that is to claim dualism - two natures which is the ultimate Trinitarian cop-out.
Well Jesus was not a hybrid suffering from schizophrenia. He was not 50% man and 50% God. He was not 100% man and 100% God. He didn't have two natures. He was a human being.
-
The word WORD or 'logos' is used over 300 times in the New Testament. Most trinitarians believe that it refers to Jesus Christ. Capitalizing the word up to the translator. One of the documments the KJV translators used was the 15th century Textus Receptus. It doesn't capitalize the word logos - or 'word'. Take a look...
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf
The KJV translators - where all but ONE were trinitarians - added the capital W. indicating they added their Trinitarian slant to the text. The TR translates the word 'logos' as 'saying word'.
"In the original was the saying word and the saying word was toward the God and God was the saying word.
Strong's and Vines were both Trinitarians. They both ADDED their trinitarian slant at the end of their definition which is their OPINION. It's not truth.
Here's Strong's and look at the many meanings.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3056/kjv/tr/0-1/
Included in those meanings are...
account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.
JESUS as the WORD was ADDED by Trinitarian translators.
I contend that the word 'logos' in John 1:1 can't be Jesus for several reasons. This verse doesn't say, "In the beginning was Jesus." Jesus Christ isn't a definition of logos. The 'Word' is not synonymous with Jesus or Messiah.
The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's self-expression and communication of Himself in the creation process. What John 1:1 is saying in the beginning was the 'saying word' and that's all there was.
John Lightfoot said,
The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos.
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1993), pp. 143 and 144.
It's Christian teachers would began the teaching that the 'WORD' is a divine person - AKA Jesus Christ and that altered the verse into a trinitarian context.
There are many ways to interpret John 1:1. In a sense it's OK to call Jesus the word because 'logos' is the expression of God and communication of Himself. Just like a 'word' is an outward expression of someone's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now come through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus can called the Word. Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation a word from God and the Bible the Word of God. It's just bad hermeneutics and unacceptable to claim that the word logos makes Jesus God and that a Trinity exist because of it.
Tell me how the Trinity developed?
-
Well, you could have giving me a brief explanation of how you interpret John 1:1.
Eternal Jesus is the Word, He was with God, He was God.
And you could have quoted the verse that you claim the holy spirit is God.
I can if we get past anyone believing that Jesus is the Word of God :-)
And you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you know how the doctrine of Trinity developed. I don't think you do know.
Are you talking by whom and when standpoint, or are you speaking from a, "understanding the Trinity as revealed in Scripture" standpoint?
Most Trinitarians know little to nothing about its development. I've found that when the history of the doctrine is exposed, most Trinitarians are either in denial of its history or they just avoid it altogether. Trinitarians is a term utilized by those who refuse to view what is revealed in the Word of God about the triune nature of God. You won't find me discussing "doctrine." You should know this fact from our past discussions.
People believe in Trinity because that's the only side they've been taught. It's like pre-trib. Most people have never heard anything but pre-trib taught in their church. That's all they know so that's all they believe. Those that do know fight it tooth and nail regardless of the mountain of evidence against it. Trinity is a little different. Trinitarians make Jesus into someone he is not and claim he's equal to God. Then they turn the doctrine into the holy grail of Christianity claiming Unitarians are heretics, apostates, cult members, and pass judgment on them claiming they are NOT Christians and condemned.
The Trinity actually makes Jesus a fraud and the cross a hoax. We know that God cannot be tempted and He cannot sin. If Jesus was God that means that he could NOT have been tempted to sin anyway! How do Trinitarians get around that one? The only way they CAN get around that is to claim dualism - two natures which is the ultimate Trinitarian cop-out.
Well Jesus was not a hybrid suffering from schizophrenia. He was not 50% man and 50% God. He was not 100% man and 100% God. He didn't have two natures. He was a human being.
Seems more like you want support for an agenda.
-
Are you an ex-JW?
No. And it would be irrelevant if I was. I'm talking about the text. Not my personal background.
1 Chronicles 29:20 indicates that the assembly worshipped the 'LORD your God' while in the presence of the king of Israel (David or Solomon, your pick), not that the assembly worshipped the 'LORD your God' and also the king of Israel in the same way. The assembly worshipped God and paid homage to the king, perhaps?
We don't get to invent a detail the text doesn't provide. It literally says they "worshiped the LORD and the king". Not "they worshiped the LORD and also the king was there watching them do that", nor "they worshiped the LORD and they paid homage to the king, and these are two different verbs, so don't get confused". It uses one verb, applied to both God and king in one sentence.
Anyway, this distinction between different kinds of 'worship' is your point, but it's one that we can simply agree with and ask, 'yes, and?'
So, you agree "worship" does not inherently mean "as a deity", but then you do a 180 and claim Jesus being "worshiped" must mean he is God. Have your cake, or eat it, but you can't do both. If the words don't mean "worship as a deity", but carry a more general meaning of giving "obeisance, honor, or homage" to a person in a worthy position -- since we both agree there examples of exactly that -- then Jesus being "worshiped" does not inherently or automatically entail that he and his followers thought he was God.
So within the context of an example like that found in Matthew 14, why should we view the disciples worship and naming of Jesus as anything other than revealing of Jesus' divinity?
They bowed in "worship" (homage, honor, obeisance) Jesus because they concluded he must Israel's anointed king, a person who had been divinely chosen to be exalted over the nation -- even the whole world, to execute judgment on God's behalf, as apocalyptic sects believed at the time -- in fulfillment of Israel's hope and heaven's plan.
-
Well, you could have giving me a brief explanation of how you interpret John 1:1.
Eternal Jesus is the Word, He was with God, He was God.
And you could have quoted the verse that you claim the holy spirit is God.
I can if we get past anyone believing that Jesus is the Word of God :-)
And you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you know how the doctrine of Trinity developed. I don't think you do know.
Are you talking by whom and when standpoint, or are you speaking from a, "understanding the Trinity as revealed in Scripture" standpoint?
Most Trinitarians know little to nothing about its development. I've found that when the history of the doctrine is exposed, most Trinitarians are either in denial of its history or they just avoid it altogether. Trinitarians is a term utilized by those who refuse to view what is revealed in the Word of God about the triune nature of God. You won't find me discussing "doctrine." You should know this fact from our past discussions.
People believe in Trinity because that's the only side they've been taught. It's like pre-trib. Most people have never heard anything but pre-trib taught in their church. That's all they know so that's all they believe. Those that do know fight it tooth and nail regardless of the mountain of evidence against it. Trinity is a little different. Trinitarians make Jesus into someone he is not and claim he's equal to God. Then they turn the doctrine into the holy grail of Christianity claiming Unitarians are heretics, apostates, cult members, and pass judgment on them claiming they are NOT Christians and condemned.
The Trinity actually makes Jesus a fraud and the cross a hoax. We know that God cannot be tempted and He cannot sin. If Jesus was God that means that he could NOT have been tempted to sin anyway! How do Trinitarians get around that one? The only way they CAN get around that is to claim dualism - two natures which is the ultimate Trinitarian cop-out.
Well Jesus was not a hybrid suffering from schizophrenia. He was not 50% man and 50% God. He was not 100% man and 100% God. He didn't have two natures. He was a human being.
Seems more like you want support for an agenda.
You haven't made an attempt to support anything you believe.
I looked at the guest list and noticed 5 people were registering. Trinity tends to strike a nerve in people. Did you go to the other forum to get some reinforcements? That would be good for the forum and for this discussion.
Tell me what you know about the Trinity's development.
You said in response to my asking for you to quote the verse you said you could....
I can if we get past anyone believing that Jesus is the Word of God :-)
Now that says a lot about you playing games. Get away from it and add to the discussion.
-
Are we talking with Jimbo, did you write the following article, or are you a copy pasta machine? https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1.
The word WORD or 'logos' is used over 300 times in the New Testament. Most trinitarians believe that it refers to Jesus Christ. Capitalizing the word up to the translator. One of the documments the KJV translators used was the 15th century Textus Receptus. It doesn't capitalize the word logos - or 'word'. Take a look...
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf
The KJV translators - where all but ONE were trinitarians - added the capital W. indicating they added their Trinitarian slant to the text. The TR translates the word 'logos' as 'saying word'.
"In the original was the saying word and the saying word was toward the God and God was the saying word.
There's a reason John 1:1 isn't translated the way you've done it here, but your point concerning the capitalisation - or lack thereof - of ' the Word' (O λογος) is confusing. THEENTIREGREEKTEXTWOULDHAVEBEENCAPITALISEDANYWAY, and the capitalisation of a word like 'Word' follows from the grammatical context of the sentence (the 'Word' being the subject and 'God' being the predicate, with 'Word' coming first as emphasis), not some Trinitarian conspiracy that anyone with half a brain and a knowledge of Koine Greek could disprove (although I suppose we still have the JWs and their awful-fingers-in-ears-head-in-sand hermeneutic).
Strong's and Vines were both Trinitarians. They both ADDED their trinitarian slant at the end of their definition which is their OPINION. It's not truth.
Here's Strong's and look at the many meanings.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3056/kjv/tr/0-1/
Included in those meanings are...
account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.
This is a red herring. Strong isn't well regarded among Biblical scholars, and I don't think Vine is that far behind. Both can be useful, but it's not like Biblical scholars are all huddled around Strong's concordance. They aren't, and if you were to, say, make your use of Strong's known at any reputable school of theology you'd be slapped.
JESUS as the WORD was ADDED by Trinitarian translators.
I contend that the word 'logos' in John 1:1 can't be Jesus for several reasons. This verse doesn't say, "In the beginning was Jesus." Jesus Christ isn't a definition of logos. The 'Word' is not synonymous with Jesus or Messiah.
Another confusing claim. 'JESUS as the WORD' isn't a translational addition, but an exegetical insight (whether you agree that it's correct or valuable or not...).
The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's self-expression and communication of Himself in the creation process. What John 1:1 is saying in the beginning was the 'saying word' and that's all there was.
John Lightfoot said,
The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.”
(You forgot to add a new line here.)
It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos.
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1993), pp. 143 and 144.
This bit flows better in the article you lifted your response from. But even in that article, as here, it's unclear what you think is being argued for? We might ask: why did those early Christian teachers draw a connection between the Word and Jesus? Why does the author think that 'these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of...'? Are those early Christian teachers pre-Tertullian? pre-Athanasius? Are they pre-Cappadocia? Pre-Maximus? Were they even Trinitarian in any 'modern' understanding of the doctrine, or were they proto-Trinitarian, like Justin Martyr (which, let's face it, is an imposition forced on them looking back)?
It's Christian teachers would began the teaching that the 'WORD' is a divine person - AKA Jesus Christ and that altered the verse into a trinitarian context.
The verse wasn't altered, and 'the Word' would be capitalised regardless, given the grammatical structure of the sentence. It seems this is a Unitarian position that throws the baby out with the bathwater.
There are many ways to interpret John 1:1. In a sense it's OK to call Jesus the word because 'logos' is the expression of God and communication of Himself. Just like a 'word' is an outward expression of someone's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now come through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus can called the Word. Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation a word from God and the Bible the Word of God. It's just bad hermeneutics and unacceptable to claim that the word logos makes Jesus God and that a Trinity exist because of it.
Tell me how the Trinity developed?
As the sun radiates.
What is the relevance of Slug1, or anyone else, explaining the development of Trinitarian doctrine? Is this to demonstrate that Slug1 and others are in fact ignorant of some grand historical Trinitarian conspiracy boogeyman? You're just itching to talk about Martyr aren't you. ;)
-
Jimbo, I don't know where you're going with this, but I'm putting a hold on this thread until you and I have a chat.