Trinity --- true or false?

[music4two]

Much has been said about the verses in John 1 proving that Jesus is God. They literally translate the term "word" as Jesus. This is dishonest with scripture and beraks several fundemental interpretation principles.
Boy, when will this nonsense finally die!

The Greek term “word” in John is Logos.

wikpedia =

logos — which in Classical Greek stands for: a) the (oral or written) expression of thoughts and b) the ability of a person to express his thoughts (inward logos).

At Robertson defines Logos as -

The Word (o logov).
Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech.

In most Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias Logos is defined as a statement or speach.
I think of Logos as the intentions or motives of God. It could also be argued as God’s plan. In this way it fits all the remaining times Logos/word is used in scripture. One of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used. Especially by the same author. If Word/Logos literally means Jesus in John 1 then it should mean Jesus everywhere else in scripture.
36 times Logos is used in the Book of John. they translate the first four times as meaning Jesus. What about the other 32 times it is used? This is in the same book and the same author! By what authority do they translate 4 verses one way and 32 another? This does not even take into consideration over 300 other times Logos is used in the New Testament with the meaning always as an expressed idea or intention.

Can you see that the definition of Logos = Jesus cannot work in the rest of scripture? The question still remains - By what authority do they translate these few in John a couple in I John and a couple in Revelation differently then the remaining 350 times it is used in scripture? Does their doctrine of the Trinity give them the authority to translate a few verses diferently then the overwhelming majority of verses?

God has used Logos over 350 times with clear meaning of a statement, expressed idea, plan, motive or intention. This is in complete agreement with the functional and relational way in which Hebrews thought and wrote.


><(((((((O>

 

[mawuvi]

music4two, that is a very long post man. This supposed to be a discussion and not a lecture. I got lost trying to take it all in. Could you try and make it short and sweet in future?

 

[music4two]

music4two, that is a very long post man. This supposed to be a discussion and not a lecture. I got lost trying to take it all in. Could you try and make it short and sweet in future?

Eddited. Happy now?

 

[mawuvi]

Thank you music4two. I follow what you are saying now. You make good points. Stay blessed

 

[Willtor]

Much has been said about the verses in John 1 proving that Jesus is God. They literally translate the term "word" as Jesus. This is dishonest with scripture and beraks several fundemental interpretation principles.
Boy, when will this nonsense finally die!

The Greek term “word” in John is Logos.

wikpedia =

logos — which in Classical Greek stands for: a) the (oral or written) expression of thoughts and b) the ability of a person to express his thoughts (inward logos).

At Robertson defines Logos as -

The Word (o logov).
Logov is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logov is common for reason as well as speech.

In most Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias Logos is defined as a statement or speach.
I think of Logos as the intentions or motives of God. It could also be argued as God’s plan. In this way it fits all the remaining times Logos/word is used in scripture. One of the primary tennants of biblical interpretation is to line up our definitions of words with the language and then cross reference them with other times that word is used. Especially by the same author. If Word/Logos literally means Jesus in John 1 then it should mean Jesus everywhere else in scripture.
36 times Logos is used in the Book of John. they translate the first four times as meaning Jesus. What about the other 32 times it is used? This is in the same book and the same author! By what authority do they translate 4 verses one way and 32 another? This does not even take into consideration over 300 other times Logos is used in the New Testament with the meaning always as an expressed idea or intention.

Can you see that the definition of Logos = Jesus cannot work in the rest of scripture? The question still remains - By what authority do they translate these few in John a couple in I John and a couple in Revelation differently then the remaining 350 times it is used in scripture? Does their doctrine of the Trinity give them the authority to translate a few verses diferently then the overwhelming majority of verses?

God has used Logos over 350 times with clear meaning of a statement, expressed idea, plan, motive or intention. This is in complete agreement with the functional and relational way in which Hebrews thought and wrote.


><(((((((O>

Good points. The reason, though, that it's taken as meaning Christ, here, is that in v.14 it says that the "Word became flesh and lived among us." Why does John use the word in this way? It's really a synthesis of two cultures: Hebrew and Greek. In the Old Testament, recall that when God speaks to prophets it is frequently recorded as, "the word of the Lord came to so-and-so." You are absolutely right, then, that the "word" is the means by which God makes Himself known. In Greek culture, there are a few nuances that are quite compelling, especially as Logos relates to Ethos and Pathos (all of which could be translated as "word"). But suffice to say that this bridged a significant cultural gap. Pertaining to this discussion, it would have meant something very close to the one whose word it was; it would mean something like a wisdom or truth. John's point, here, is to identify Jesus as the quintessential message of God to humanity and His eternal Word and Wisdom.

This was the essential dispute between Athanasius and Arius: not whether Jesus was the Word of God, but whether he was God's true, eternal Word, or a created Word, only. All ancient commentators (Trinitarian or otherwise) with whom I am familiar took the Word described in John to be Jesus.

 

[Logicalthinker]

Good points. The reason, though, that it's taken as meaning Christ, here, is that in v.14 it says that the "Word became flesh and lived among us." Why does John use the word in this way? It's really a synthesis of two cultures: Hebrew and Greek. In the Old Testament, recall that when God speaks to prophets it is frequently recorded as, "the word of the Lord came to so-and-so." You are absolutely right, then, that the "word" is the means by which God makes Himself known. In Greek culture, there are a few nuances that are quite compelling, especially as Logos relates to Ethos and Pathos (all of which could be translated as "word"). But suffice to say that this bridged a significant cultural gap. Pertaining to this discussion, it would have meant something very close to the one whose word it was; it would mean something like a wisdom or truth. John's point, here, is to identify Jesus as the quintessential message of God to humanity and His eternal Word and Wisdom.

This was the essential dispute between Athanasius and Arius: not whether Jesus was the Word of God, but whether he was God's true, eternal Word, or a created Word, only. All ancient commentators (Trinitarian or otherwise) with whom I am familiar took the Word described in John to be Jesus.

Music4two makes a really good point.

The answer you are giving is a little bit like smoke in mirrors.

Logos should be translated the same everywhere in the bible. Not change it in couple of places.

If a word is hard to translate the bible is to translate itself. Man does not have the right.

Genesis 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

So if Logos is used as intentions or motives of God 30 some places in the bible, it is clear that is how it is to be used.

Man must use the bible to interpret itself. If we do it with our thoughts we get things that are not scriptural. Like the Trinity.

Would Jesus lie about who he was? I already know that he would not. To claim you are someone else is dishonest. If he was God in the flesh he would have told us. Instead of being dishonest. That's like me saying, "I am Brad Pitt" it is dishonest and police will arrest you for the crime.

God Bless
LT

 

[StudentoftheWord]

So is man wrong?
Or is the bible wrong?

Who made the trinity doctrine?

Plus is John lying about no one seeing God?

The physcial form of Jesus, is not God and therefore none has seen God. God is Spirit, and His followers worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

So your logic premise hinges once again on a fallacy called: Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation).

When you are able to bring all evidences to the table and even take the side of a Trinitarian, you will never be a logical thinker, only a bias one with fallacy.

Take care.

 

[Willtor]

Music4two makes a really good point.

The answer you are giving is a little bit like smoke in mirrors.

Logos should be translated the same everywhere in the bible. Not change it in couple of places.

If a word is hard to translate the bible is to translate itself. Man does not have the right.

Genesis 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

So if Logos is used as intentions or motives of God 30 some places in the bible, it is clear that is how it is to be used.

Man must use the bible to interpret itself. If we do it with our thoughts we get things that are not scriptural. Like the Trinity.

Would Jesus lie about who he was? I already know that he would not. To claim you are someone else is dishonest. If he was God in the flesh he would have told us. Instead of being dishonest. That's like me saying, "I am Brad Pitt" it is dishonest and police will arrest you for the crime.

God Bless
LT

I'm certainly sorry if it comes off that way. But I stand by the point, as in v.14 that "the Word became flesh" and thus, it's talking about Christ. Again, if you're saying that this isn't what it means, in fact, you are the one proposing a strange interpretation. Even the ancient opponents of Trinitarianism argued that it was talking about Christ. The question was not whether Jesus was the Word, but whether the Word was God's eternal Word.

But as to this hermeneutic, I think we can agree that in many cases the same word ought not to be taken the same way in all places. For example, we would not confuse Joseph, the earthly father of Christ, with Joseph, the son of Jacob. They are two different people even though the same word is used. I'm sure you'll agree that the context in which a thing is said is important to its meaning.

My question to you is: why are you taking it differently? It would help if you could point to an ancient commentator (Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian) who disputed the meaning of "Word" in John and argued that the author did not mean Christ. If you can't, it might help to provide a consistent framework for thinking about who Christ is or was when examining Scripture.

 

[StudentoftheWord]

My question to you is: why are you taking it differently? It would help if you could point to an ancient commentator (Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian) who disputed the meaning of "Word" in John and argued that the author did not mean Christ. If you can't, it might help to provide a consistent framework for thinking about who Christ is or was when examining Scripture.

Sharp, if only others could see what you just said.

 

[Jessica01]

You know Isaac Newton. Law of Gravity, Motion, invented calculus. His calulations for orbiting objects are still used by NASA. Plus alchemy, theology, and physics. With out the tools he created: Einstein and Hawkins might just be figuring out calculus.

If you need more info the internet is abound with it on Isaac Newton.

God Bless
LT

He was a smart man - but were alot of other men.

And just because he was good at one thing does not make him necessrily brillant about other things.

he was plain wrong about the Trinity

 

[Logicalthinker]

The physcial form of Jesus, is not God and therefore none has seen God. God is Spirit, and His followers worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

Well in another post trinitarians claim that this verse proves that Jesus is God.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So look God preached to the Gentiles, All the Gentiles saw him. According to Trinitarians.

So What is it? Was God seen or not?
This is Theos, the same word in John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12. All are Theos.

Is John lying in the two above verses?

So your logic premise hinges once again on a fallacy called: Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation).

When you are able to bring all evidences to the table and even take the side of a Trinitarian, you will never be a logical thinker, only a bias one with fallacy.

Take care.

Not fallacy. I showed scripture. Genesis 40:8 Plus I do agree with what John 1:1 says. I was only agreeing with the Idea that why only there and not other places.

In the bible gods are ministers. Jesus surly was the true minister of God.

John 10:30-36 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?



Why do you talk to a fellow brother the way you do?

The bible can be discussed civil. You act superior and talk down to me. We are brothers fighting the good fight are we not? I show you respect. and you constantly attack my character. I don't get that. That is not how I would picture the disciples in the bible. But to each their own.



God Bless
LT

 

[Logicalthinker]

I'm certainly sorry if it comes off that way. But I stand by the point, as in v.14 that "the Word became flesh" and thus, it's talking about Christ. Again, if you're saying that this isn't what it means, in fact, you are the one proposing a strange interpretation. Even the ancient opponents of Trinitarianism argued that it was talking about Christ. The question was not whether Jesus was the Word, but whether the Word was God's eternal Word.

I apologize. I believe that Jesus is the word.
What I meant is that even if logos was left as Gods motive's it would not change the verse. God's motives would have become flesh. Which was Jesus. So clearly John1:1 is about Jesus. I agree.

But as to this hermeneutic, I think we can agree that in many cases the same word ought not to be taken the same way in all places. For example, we would not confuse Joseph, the earthly father of Christ, with Joseph, the son of Jacob. They are two different people even though the same word is used. I'm sure you'll agree that the context in which a thing is said is important to its meaning.

You are correct. we would not confuse the Josephs. But they are people. Proper Nouns. A name. Logos is not a name. In the bible it is mainly an action. Verb. Plus I would like to reinstate that I do believe Jesus is the word. I was just pointing out that it was a good point.

My question to you is: why are you taking it differently? It would help if you could point to an ancient commentator (Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian) who disputed the meaning of "Word" in John and argued that the author did not mean Christ. If you can't, it might help to provide a consistent framework for thinking about who Christ is or was when examining Scripture.

Jesus is the word. But I do not take John 1:1 as Jesus is God. Especially when you get to John 1:18. Nor is Jesus equal to his father.

I would like to thank you brother. You discuss the bible with passion and conviction. You never resort to character attacks and belittling. You show the signs of a true Christian and have good integrity.

God Bless
LT

 

[StudentoftheWord]

Why do you talk to a fellow brother the way you do?

I talk to you the way I do, because you claim to use logic and reasoning to get your answers. Everytime you do not use logic or reasoning to get your answers, I will demonstrate where you failed in order that you may return to your logical thinking instead of relying on many of the fallacies I have seen you engage in order to 'prove' your point.

The bible can be discussed civil. You act superior and talk down to me. We are brothers fighting the good fight are we not? I show you respect. and you constantly attack my character. I don't get that. That is not how I would picture the disciples in the bible. But to each their own.

I am not superior to you, nor do I hold any claim to this. Now if you feel that I protray myself superior, then my apologies. That has never been my intention and I have not disrespected you. All my rebuttle's are based on logic and reason and was it not the matter of fact that you requested logic and reasoning to come to your belief system? That is why you are treated in the same manner. Is that not the Golden rule? "Treat others as you want them do unto you?" To them who are under the Law, I came to them as part of the Law, to them who are Free from the Law, I came to them as a Free man.


Still, I asked you to take the side of your opposition and establish your argument in favor of what you disagree with; yet, you have yet to do so in now, two cases. The Trinity argument and the God hates all nations argument, yet you still refuse. If we truly are brothers working in the same good fight, why do you attack such petty doctrines as Trinity and make such severe judgments against Nation, when there are real issues that actually have relevance. Pluck the timber out of our own eyes, before we take the speck from our neighbors.

 

[StudentoftheWord]

Not fallacy. I showed scripture. Genesis 40:8 Plus I do agree with what John 1:1 says. I was only agreeing with the Idea that why only there and not other places.

So you can tell a Trinitarian why he believes in One God, who is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Please explain, you will find that if you do understand, you can give a convincing argument in favor of trinitarinism and then your rebuttal against it would be much more superior. How can someone say you don't understand, when you just explained their belief system intimately with agreement, and then point out so obviously why you disagree and leave them having now to ponder such rebuttal's.

Thanks.

 

[Willtor]

I apologize. I believe that Jesus is the word.
What I meant is that even if logos was left as Gods motive's it would not change the verse. God's motives would have become flesh. Which was Jesus. So clearly John1:1 is about Jesus. I agree.

You are correct. we would not confuse the Josephs. But they are people. Proper Nouns. A name. Logos is not a name. In the bible it is mainly an action. Verb. Plus I would like to reinstate that I do believe Jesus is the word. I was just pointing out that it was a good point.

Jesus is the word. But I do not take John 1:1 as Jesus is God. Especially when you get to John 1:18. Nor is Jesus equal to his father.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, then we are agreed that Jesus is the Word of God (motive, wisdom, means of communication, etc.). But our dispute is as to whether he is God's eternal Word (as has been the traditional dispute). And, of course, this is the contention in John 1:1. Before we continue, is this a correct summary?

I would like to thank you brother. You discuss the bible with passion and conviction. You never resort to character attacks and belittling. You show the signs of a true Christian and have good integrity.

God Bless
LT

Prov. 15:1

 

[Logicalthinker]

Okay, so if I understand correctly, then we are agreed that Jesus is the Word of God (motive, wisdom, means of communication, etc.). But our dispute is as to whether he is God's eternal Word (as has been the traditional dispute). And, of course, this is the contention in John 1:1. Before we continue, is this a correct summary?

Yes. Jesus is God's eternal word.
I agree that Jesus was the Son of God and was sent as a teacher and Saviour for our sins.

Prov. 15:1

Thank you brother for this verse. It is a good one and I will reflect upon it. Maybe my approach to warning people could be a lot better. Thank you again.

God Bless
LT

 

[StudentoftheWord]

I will not be part of this. When you speak with venom. You chase people from God. God said we would know each other by the love. You do not show love. You are not one of Christ's followers as you claim or this would be the first thing on your mind. You are probably A nice guy as far as the world goes. You have made your stand. You hate me and show it. You do not show the love of Christ.

God Bless and may love find you.
LT

Is your soul alright?

What you posted here, really demonstrates you do not have a clue on what is right and wrong, what is good and what is bad.

So here is yet more fallacy, oh logical thinker, that you really need to learn to stop and hold your tongue:

#1 Prove to everyone in this room, with your evidences and proofs and support, that I have chased a single person from God.

#2 Prove to everyone here, that I lack love just because I disagree with you, and put you on the spot for the words you have spoken.

I have not chased a single person from God, and I have even demonstrated you great love because of my patience and tolerance of your behavior and judgments which have been called into question, not by just me but others.

If you are looking for a warm hug, and a tear of pity for you, you will not find it online because this is text on an electronic screen. You do not see body language online, you do not see tone online, and so your judgement is based on only a minute amount of information and therefore any judgment you can make about a person, especially online is unsound and you lack wisdom in proclaiming it.

I encourage you, and give you advice concerning your style and approach, you should seriously change your name if you can't handle logical thinking. But I have no qualms in calling a spade, a spade. I continue to encourage you and I continue to be patient, either change your style or get inline with what you proclaim and get ready to recieve what you dish out.

Since you judge without knowledge and your feet are quick to rush into evil and pour out false witness against others. The only one with a problem is you, and you are up against alot of pressure. You have much time to repent from your words, and I will not hold them against you.

Proverbs 6:16-20
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

So, are you going to continue to plant seeds of bitterness, or are you going to realize you may not understand somethings and your assumptions are just that. I already apologized for your perception of me, but I cannot apologize for your lies about me.

 

[StudentoftheWord]

I believe Yeshua said this about the trinity.

Matthew 24:5
For many will come in My name, saying, &#8216;I am the Christ,&#8217; and will deceive many.

What a different way of reading that Scripture. Thanks

 

[Willtor]

Yes. Jesus is God's eternal word.
I agree that Jesus was the Son of God and was sent as a teacher and Saviour for our sins.

When the term "eternal Word" is used, it indicates that Jesus _is_ God's wisdom (or intention or whatever else) and that there is no higher wisdom than Jesus, himself. I don't know if this is how you meant it because this essentially is Trinitarianism. I'll explain why:

First, I'm sure we can agree (and tell me if I'm mistaken) that God is all wise and His purposes (or intentions) are not partial but full. Everything that God does is wise, and wisdom is not arbitrary. If one distinguishes God's wisdom from God, Himself, one argues that God's wisdom is not in Him but is another, separate thing.

If this isn't clear reasoning, consider it from another angle:

Arius argued that the Word (Jesus, himself) was not God's eternal Word, but a created Word. This led to two possible conclusions:

1. God has another, more true, eternal Word than Jesus
or
2. God is not eternally and wise (or intentional or whatever).

I suspect that Arius argued the first possibility, but I haven't read enough to be certain. The orthodoxy held to the position, however, that there was no greater Word than Christ and that this wisdom was God's eternal wisdom. The orthodox conclusion, then, was that knowledge of Christ was - itself - knowledge of God. Arius, on the other hand, concluded that it was a second-hand knowledge. Jesus was a ray of light from the Father, but he was a dim ray.

Trinitarianism, in Christianity, is precisely that Jesus is, himself, the Father's light and that there is no greater light.

 

[Brennin]

...Arius didn't argue that he had tradition on his side. His main contention was that Trinitarianism was so incoherent that it would likely slip into Sabellianism.

That is false. Arius most certainly argued that tradition was on his side.