the Trinity

GratiaCorpusChristi · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
Let me see if I can illustrate the dishonesty to which one must stoop to prove a doctrine that is not in scripture.

Logos or “word” in John 1
The Greek word logos has a very clear definition and is used over 350 times in scripture. The definition is a statement, Speech or expressed idea. Even those bible dictionaries that have Trinitarian bent will state that this is the primary definition. One of the most basic fundamentals of honest bible interpretation is that you always use the primary definition of a word unless there is very clear evidence to use another. (proving a doctrine is not reason enough)
In all but 6 to 8 verses Trinitarians interpret the term “logos” or word as a statement, speech or expressed idea. Yet in these few verses they use another definition. By what authority, other then a dishonest attempt to prove a doctrine, do they do this? It is very simple --- There is no clear proof of the doctrine so things must be forced to even give an illusion of backing to the doctrine. By forcing the term logos to literally mean Jesus in these few verses they attempt to prove the trinity. If logos did literally mean Jesus then it would have to do so in the majority of scripture. This is not the case.

Scripture was written so that the common man could understand it. When John wrote his gospel, God used the language and concepts common in the larger Greek world that the gospel was then reaching. Although written in Greek the author still conveyed very Hebrew concepts through the use of the word Logos. A revealing of God as in the burning bush, the shikhania glory ect. The common usage of the term “logos’ was defined as I mentioned above and should be understood in that way.

Curiously enough there are dozens of verses that clearly say that Jesus is a man using the term “antrhropos” which can only mean human. (and I am not talking about some hybrid 100% god 100% man nonsense)

To simply explain John 1. God made a statement in the same way I would make a statement by giving my wife flowers. Something is being said by that action. Yahweh made it very clear that this was perfected humanity. The last Adam. The “man” whom God appointed to judge and rule the Earth.
Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man (anthropos - human) whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
God had the idea of perfected humanity from the beginning. This is His overall plan. His idea/plan became flesh. It came to fruition. Jesus is the pivotal point of all of God’s creation. He is that which makes the entire plan work. He is the first fruits and the first to accomplish what God started to do with the first Adam. Because of this, Jesus is our example and the one we are to become like. 1 Peter 2:21 [ Christ Is Our Example ] For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, Any augmentation of Jesus’ full and complete humanity make this comparison impossible. If Jesus is God OR fully God and fully man then He cannot be a true example for us. We can never be sure that the things he did are for us too. This includes His overcoming sin, healing, relationship with God or even His resurrection. How can Jesus’ resurrection be an example or hope for me if what was resurrected lived and existed as something other then completely human. As is stated in the above selected verse, God furnished proof to the rest of humanity (us) by raising this human (Jesus) from the dead.

I suppose it's too much to hope you're familiar with the teachings of Philo of Alexandria, isn't it?

Elife3 · Jul 11, 2007

Here's 1 John 5:7 (KJV)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Sounds like a trinity, don't you think?

BigNorsk · Jul 11, 2007

Yes it does, but that's a poor one to use because it's clearly an insertion. The Muslims teach the Bible is filled with additions and they teach their students about this one in particular and when right away when discussing the trinity someone pulls it out, it serves to confirm to the Muslims that what they were taught is truthful.

It got in the KJV through Erasmus Greek text. The first two editions did not contain it. When some Catholics complained, Erasmus said it was not there for the simple reason that none of his Greek manuscripts had it. Well by the third edition, one was produced, evidently made especially for the occasion, codex 61. And Erasmus gave up and inserted it, along with an rather large footnote. To this date there are only a very small handful of late Greek manuscripts that contain it. And about half of those in the margin. By handful we are talking about 10 out of thousands.

It's clearly not original, it seem to have been an insertion into many Latin manuscripts from a Latin lexicon. It doesn't appear in any other manuscript family with the exception of the few Greek witnesses. It wasn't present even in the Vulgate as translated by Jerome.

The NET bible has an extensive footnote on the issue.

20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 1Jo_5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 1Jo_5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence — both external and internal — is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS, Codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest MS with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 14th century (629), and that MS deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the Textus Receptus (TR) was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (Codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this MS sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus (TR) and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings — even in places where the Textus Receptus (TR)/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the Textus Receptus (TR), it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the Textus Receptus (TR) = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (TR) is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

I also own the TCGNT that is referenced, it is "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd edition by Bruce Metzger. It goes into the Comma manuscript by manuscript but doesn't really add much to the NET footnote except some details.

Marv

E.C. · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
Yes it is, especially since thiose throwing those daggers have their precious doctrine originating from a Pagan sun worshipper named constantine who forced the "same substance" concept onto the church by virtue of the Roman Empire's might.

What is the source? Who said this?

drmmjr · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
Let me see if I can illustrate the dishonesty to which one must stoop to prove a doctrine that is not in scripture.

Logos or word in John 1
The Greek word logos has a very clear definition and is used over 350 times in scripture. The definition is a statement, Speech or expressed idea. Even those bible dictionaries that have Trinitarian bent will state that this is the primary definition. One of the most basic fundamentals of honest bible interpretation is that you always use the primary definition of a word unless there is very clear evidence to use another. (proving a doctrine is not reason enough)
In all but 6 to 8 verses Trinitarians interpret the term logos or word as a statement, speech or expressed idea. Yet in these few verses they use another definition. By what authority, other then a dishonest attempt to prove a doctrine, do they do this? It is very simple --- There is no clear proof of the doctrine so things must be forced to even give an illusion of backing to the doctrine. By forcing the term logos to literally mean Jesus in these few verses they attempt to prove the trinity. If logos did literally mean Jesus then it would have to do so in the majority of scripture. This is not the case.

Scripture was written so that the common man could understand it. When John wrote his gospel, God used the language and concepts common in the larger Greek world that the gospel was then reaching. Although written in Greek the author still conveyed very Hebrew concepts through the use of the word Logos. A revealing of God as in the burning bush, the shikhania glory ect. The common usage of the term logos was defined as I mentioned above and should be understood in that way.

Curiously enough there are dozens of verses that clearly say that Jesus is a man using the term antrhropos which can only mean human. (and I am not talking about some hybrid 100% god 100% man nonsense)

To simply explain John 1. God made a statement in the same way I would make a statement by giving my wife flowers. Something is being said by that action. Yahweh made it very clear that this was perfected humanity. The last Adam. The man whom God appointed to judge and rule the Earth.
Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man (anthropos - human) whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
God had the idea of perfected humanity from the beginning. This is His overall plan. His idea/plan became flesh. It came to fruition. Jesus is the pivotal point of all of Gods creation. He is that which makes the entire plan work. He is the first fruits and the first to accomplish what God started to do with the first Adam. Because of this, Jesus is our example and the one we are to become like. 1 Peter 2:21 [ Christ Is Our Example ] For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, Any augmentation of Jesus full and complete humanity make this comparison impossible. If Jesus is God OR fully God and fully man then He cannot be a true example for us. We can never be sure that the things he did are for us too. This includes His overcoming sin, healing, relationship with God or even His resurrection. How can Jesus resurrection be an example or hope for me if what was resurrected lived and existed as something other then completely human. As is stated in the above selected verse, God furnished proof to the rest of humanity (us) by raising this human (Jesus) from the dead.

Well said.

BigNorsk said:
It isn't a forced interpretation. It's simply accepting the passage as it is written. The passage does not end with verse 1.

Joh 1:14-18 NET.
(14) Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
(15) John testified about him and shouted out, "This one was the one about whom I said, 'He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.' "
(16) For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another.
(17) For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.
(18) No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

As you can see, the Word is Jesus. Just as it was in verse 1. It's not a forced interpretation to back up a man made doctrine. The doctrine came from the study of scripture, if you don't see it, maybe the problem isn't that it is made up, maybe you just need some more study time.

Frankly I have trouble believing you've spent much time at it if you didn't even read the first chapter of John to see the clear reference that the Word is Jesus.

You're correct in that the passage doesn't end with verse 1. As is shown in verse 14, the Word became flesh. Now, if we regard this Word/Logos as the "statement, Speech, or expressed idea" that is the primary definition of the word, we can see that it is the "expressed idea" that God had for a plan of salvation for us that became reality with the birth of Jesus. This plan of salvation through Jesus is something that God had in mind from the very beginning. The Word was not Jesus, but Jesus became the Word.

It would seem more forced to read Word as being Jesus than the word becoming Jesus.

GenemZ · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
Yes it is, especially since thiose throwing those daggers have their precious doctrine originating from a Pagan sun worshipper named constantine who forced the "same substance" concept onto the church by virtue of the Roman Empire's might.

I can see it now ----
Come on down folks. You too can light a fire for religious piety. Follow in the footsteps of such greats as Caligula and Nero. You can kill your enemies in the name of God. Isn't that what Jesus taught?

Some here are forgetting an essential issue that if not properly understood, will end up concluding like you have.

There is a god of this world. His name is Satan. He is the father of religions of the world.

Guess what? He has a deep understanding of the workings of Jehovah. He created counterfeit beliefs based upon half truths about the true God, so men would have something to be diverted away from the drawing of God.

There might be similarities between certain pagan beliefs and what true faith possesses. So?

If someone shows you a counterfeit 100 dollar bill? Do you throw away the real thing because it has similarities? You have.

In Christ, GeneZ

boodle · Jul 11, 2007

BigNorsk said:
It isn't a forced interpretation. It's simply accepting the passage as it is written. The passage does not end with verse 1.

Joh 1:14-18 NET.
(14) Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory — the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
(15) John testified about him and shouted out, "This one was the one about whom I said, 'He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.' "
(16) For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another.
(17) For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.
(18) No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

As you can see, the Word is Jesus. Just as it was in verse 1. It's not a forced interpretation to back up a man made doctrine. The doctrine came from the study of scripture, if you don't see it, maybe the problem isn't that it is made up, maybe you just need some more study time.

Frankly I have trouble believing you've spent much time at it if you didn't even read the first chapter of John to see the clear reference that the Word is Jesus.

Marv

Your interpertation is wrong and I will tell you why. Because your end conclussion is wrong. If Jesus is God then you can never be like Him and that basically scraps all of Christianity.
If you believe that God's plan is to raise up other sons and daughters like Christ, then you must come to one of two conclusions.
1. We are to become Gods
2. Jesus is fully human just like us.

And you cannot start that silliness about the 100% God and man balogna because that would mean that Jesus was both temptable and non temptable, failable and non failable. This is a imposibility and cannot be stated in a reasonable rational way. Therefore that conclussion is wrong too. Now you go ahead and live in a metaphysical mystical reverie if you want, but I prefer to know who Jesus is as my brother and follow him as a true example.

Gal328 · Jul 11, 2007

skywatching said:
Bread Alone, I appreciate the references but I am not doubting that Jesus is not God's son...I am saying Jesus is not GOD himself

Icxn, That is a poetic reference by John..he also says Jesus is the Light but I dont think he meant he was going to be the world's light bulb. Jesus himself nevers tells anyone that he is also God, he repeats 'Son of Man' for a long time then admits to some as God's Son. They are one in Spirit just as I beleive in the joining of two people in marriage. Does this explain better?

I'm not trying to be mean or the negative advocate. I just want people to REALLY sit and listen to the scriptures and not a doctrine that was not invented until over a hunded years after Jesus accended.

There's this passage in Hebrews, ( sorry I don't have my bible with me. ) That shows the Father calling Jesus God. saying your thrown oh God will last forever.

Sitting and listening requires for you to accept that in John it states that the word was God and He dwelt among us.

E.C. · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
Yes it is, especially since thiose throwing those daggers have their precious doctrine originating from a Pagan sun worshipper named constantine who forced the "same substance" concept onto the church by virtue of the Roman Empire's might.

For the third time I ask, what is your source?

boodle · Jul 11, 2007

sorry posted to the wrong person. Now edited.

boodle · Jul 11, 2007

EmperorConstantine said:
For the third time I ask, what is your source?

Did you read my original response to this thread? I cited several sources.
If this is an attempt to draw me into a revisionist hitory debate, forget it. Not interested.

E.C. · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
Did you read my original response to this thread? I cited several sources.
If this is an attempt to draw me into a revisionist hitory debate, forget it. Not interested.

Well than in that case, I shall respond to that post appropriately.

boodle · Jul 11, 2007

genez said:
Some here are forgetting an essential issue that if not properly understood, will end up concluding like you have.

There is a god of this world. His name is Satan. He is the father of religions of the world.

Guess what? He has a deep understanding of the workings of Jehovah. He created counterfeit beliefs based upon half truths about the true God, so men would have something to be diverted away from the drawing of God.

There might be similarities between certain pagan beliefs and what true faith possesses. So?

If someone shows you a counterfeit 100 dollar bill? Do you throw away the real thing because it has similarities? You have.

In Christ, GeneZ

It really makes no difference. If you want to revise history, go ahead. The simple fact is that if you make Jesus God then you must change the entire plan of salvation to include us becoming Gods. Otherwise the simple gospel of Christ as our example in his life, death and resurection does not apply to normal humanity but only to God or an augmented human(100% God and 100% man)

I do not care what history you believe or what scriptures you attempt to use to prove your point. When you force a change in the simple plan of salvation you have stepped out of the realms of Christianity into a sideways slant.

E.C. · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
Other ancient cultures also had Trinities to describe their Gods.

Define "archetype" when used in literature.

boodle said:
Constantine emperor of Rome had a problem. His kingdom was in turmoil because of strife between different religious factions. He had christians, gnostics, pagans, druids and many more. Constantine solved this problem by merging all these various factions together and forming The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

Here's what Constantine did for Christianity: ended persecutions, build a number of churches in Israel and called the First Ecumenical Council together at Nicaea.

Roman Catholic Church spawned from the Great Schism of 1054. The Church in the West became the Roman Catholic Church. The Church in the East became the Eastern Orthodox Church.

boodle said:
In 325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the Catholic Church and therefore his empire.

Not really. He only wished for the problem within Christianity to cease. He did not really care whether the Arians had won or not.

boodle said:
Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

Show me some piece of real historical evidence that says he was a high priest.

boodle said:
(Constantine the Sun Worshiper only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his death bed).

Show me a piece of real historical evidence that states he was a sun worshiper.

I can not continue. There is too much heresy and stupidity. Obviously the book was written by a man who did whatever he could to discredit Catholicism and in the process discredited Christianity.

E.C. · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
It really makes no difference. If you want to revise history, go ahead. The simple fact is that if you make Jesus God then you must change the entire plan of salvation to include us becoming Gods.

Man does not become God.

Man becomes like God.

Theosis. Communion with God the Father.

jad123 · Jul 11, 2007

I apologize to those who I offend but frankly most of this thread is very disturbing to me. Is this what we have to look forward to with the so called "new" rules. GT has always been difficult at times but with non-christians posting it is almost unreadable.

NewToLife · Jul 11, 2007

I apologize to those who I offend but frankly most of this thread is very disturbing to me. Is this what we have to look forward to with the so called "new" rules. GT has always been difficult at times but with non-christians posting it is almost unreadable.

I daresay it will only get worse as the communities standards slip over time.

SummaScriptura · Jul 11, 2007

Let me start by saying I am trinitarian. By His grace, I enjoy the ineffable richness of fellowship with the Three-In-One. I must say however, I wish the church had taken a different tact in ancient times. Rather than taking a rationalist deductive theoogical appraoch to the doctrine, I would have preferred had we stayed with a biblically incuctive appraoch to this truth. It is my conviction that such an approach would have prevented many from stumbling over the term "Trinity".

Here is the results of my initial research on this question:
http://www.thebookofenoch.info/triune/

I believe if we allow the scripture to speak for themselves, we come up with a richer picture of God's nature, which is more immediate and accessible to folks. I beleive such a study will reveal God's essential nature is sevenfold.

The Sevenfold Truth About God
1. There is one God.
2. The Father, He is God.
3. The Son, He is God.
4. The Holy Spirit, He is God.
5. The Son is sent by the Father.
6. The Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son.
7. The Father is sent by no one.

I'm content to leave this subject there. I do not think there is a benefit derived by coloring in the details furhter.

BobB

Kristos · Jul 11, 2007

boodle said:
The Way It All Began

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

quote]
Cut and past much?

Looks like Watchtower propaganda...

Have you actual read Gibbons historical masterpiece? Of course he was a pagan, as I'm sure you know. I will admit that I have not read perhaps the looongest history book of all time (if it's the longest it's got to be close)

To me it's rather dim to think that folks who had been tortured and martyred for the faith for centuries would suddenly just roll over without a wimper and embrace that which was not part of the faith from the beginning. How does that work? Far fetched at best.

The part about Constantine creating the Roman Catholic Church - totally false - I'm sure this cannot be found anywhere in Gibbon.

SummaScriptura · Jul 11, 2007

Fireinfolding said:
Jesus learned obedience

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Being made perfect "became"

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

As we put on Christ (being created in Him) here shows he was created

Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Peace

Fireinfolding

Fireinfolding, there are no scriptures that show The Son of God was ever created. You have mis-read Col. 3:10. Here it is in context: "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." (Col. 3:8-10)

the Trinity

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Senior Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

boodle

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

boodle

Guest

boodle

Guest

Well-Known Member

boodle

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Forever Newbie

Servant

Forever Newbie

Similar threads