Jesus is God The Father

[Slug1]

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?

[Jimbo]

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.

[Slug1]

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.

[Jimbo]

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.

[Jimbo]

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?

[Slug1]

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.

[agnostic]

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.

[Jimbo]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[The Parson]

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.