Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
647
Home
✟21,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Scripture is never wrong. Only our limited understanding. Scripture never says there is a trinity and the alternatives you laid out aren't the only ones. God's spirit is the holy spirit and that makes the holy spirit God. The problem is when you try and make jesus equal to god and the holy spirit. I have no idea why trinitarians think that Jesus was with god before the creation of the universe. It never says that. Jesus was able to forgive sins, do miracles and raise the dead through the power given to him from his father. If there was no father Jesus could not do it on his own. He did nothing on his own but everything he did was through the father. If a man brought sin into the world through disobedience then why couldn't another man of equal standing remove our sin through perfect obedience?
If Jesus was not God, then how do you account for John 1?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1: 1-14 (emphasis my own))

I would direct your attention to three clear statements made here concerning "the Word."

1. He was God
2. Without Him nothing was made that was made
3. He became flesh and dwelt among us

The only One in the Bible who could possibly fit this description is Jesus, as neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit became flesh and dwelt (lived) among us. Also, Jesus is the only one referred to as the "only begotten Son" of the Father.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How about this for speculation:

Is it possible that 'divinity' is about as impossible to adequately define as Godhead? Is it possible that there are different 'levels' of divinity?

Or are we to suppose that the 'church fathers' had it 'all figured out' and that there was nothing that they did that could have possibly been mistakes?

I have never once denied the 'divinity' of Christ. I have simply offered that it is my understanding that the Son if more like a Son than The Father. If one must call it polytheism to believe that the Son can possess as much divinity as the Father chooses to place upon Him, then so be it. I am not one to allow the ignorance of others have any significant effect upon my beliefs.

I believe in and worship 'only one God'. And that 'God' is the Father of Jesus Christ.

And I believe in and worship only one 'Begotten Son of God'. But I do not worship the Son of God as God. I worship Him as The Son of God. I pray to God in the 'name' of Christ. I pray exactly as Christ offered as an example: Our Father............... For The Father is 'our' Father. He is our heavenly Father and THE Father of Christ. He is God.

From my perspective, I am as Monotheistic as anyone ever has been. For it is my perspective that it is 'trinity' that is polytheistic. Regardless of how those that follow it try to talk around the issue, three person equals three persons. The idea that there are three persons that make up one God makes absolutely no sense. And it's irrelevant how one tries to 'talk' around the issue, the Jews, the Muslims and quite a few others view 'three persons' as polytheistic. I offer again, I worship 'only' one God as God. God'head', get it: God is the 'head'. Everything else is something 'different' than God Himself.

The Bible 'states' that the 'head of Christ is God. And the 'head' of man is Christ. And the 'head' of woman is man. Not my words. Straight out of the Bible. This in and of itself shows that God is 'the head'. Christ is secondary. Thirdly is man and last is woman. All indications are this is the 'order of creation'. Not of 'my' design, but of God's.

So you cannot accuse me of polytheism. For i do 'not' worship Christ 'as God' or 'another god'. I worship Christ as the Son of God. I worship 'only God' as God.

Blessings,

MEC

MEC good evening.

Why do we argue on the matter of divinity when the language used by the apostle Paul was clear on the Deity of Christ Jesus:


See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Colossians 2:8-14 NASB
http://bible.com/100/col.2.8-14.NASB

How much more Deity does He need to be?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with my claim that the classical Christian picture of God in his own nature came from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. I am not sure that you have read my complete post on this matter. Just in case, I am sending it again.






To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.



Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds,s such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.



In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. It really didn't seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real,as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance I the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?



The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

And Process theology ancient?
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
By this standard, "Before Abraham was, I AM" counts as proof of our Lord's divinity (Exodus 3:14-15).
...or to anyone.


The “I AM”

Here we have Jesus speaking to the Jews who wish to kill him, who did not always understand him, whom he speaks to in parables, and dark sayings. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am [1510. eimi - I am, exist - [Indicative Mood]].

Now Jesus is saying truly, truly, so this is truthful, but we still have to be careful, because “am” is in the Indicative Mood, which basically means we have to be careful taking it literally. Here is a explanation I found: The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer's or speaker's perspective. Even if the writer is lying, he may state the action as if it is a fact, and thus the verb would be in the indicative mood.

For example, we certainly can agree Jesus did not exist as a man before Abraham was. To say that he did, would not be true. Obviously, Jesus is not saying he existed as he was when he made that statement. So the question becomes how did he exist? We would need other scripture to clarify as to how he did exist before Abraham was, for this statement does not tell us. In other words, this is not a good statement to stand on by itself.

I believe there are clues though, within this chapter, like when Jesus says, anyone keeps my word he shall never see death, and the Jews asking are you greater then Abraham and the prophets, then Jesus says, Abraham seen his day. This is where the Jews get it wrong, for they said to Jesus, your not fifty years old yet and you and Abraham have met, but obviously, this is not what Jesus meant. What Jesus meant was that he was the promised one to come, long before Abraham. If you recall when Abraham went to sacrifice his son Isaac, he said to the men “we will come back to you,” then he said, “the LORD will provide,” Abraham saw his day.

On the other hand, we have a clear statement by Jesus speaking to the Father, so he is not speaking to the Father in parables, or dark sayings, he says, “Father, the hour has come...And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent [John 17:1, 3].” Yet many choose “I am” over this clear statement Jesus makes to the Father.

Knowing the only true God is eternal life.

If the Holy Spirit was another person and God, and Jesus was God, then Jesus lied when he said, the Father is the only true God, because He would not be the ONLY true God. What Jesus should have said was, “might know thee the true God,” then there may have been some wiggle room.
 
Upvote 0

Maurious Paul

Active Member
Jan 12, 2016
43
2
India
✟7,701.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Knowing the only true God is eternal life.

"....We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus the Messiah, who is the true God and eternal life." - 1 John 5:20(ISV)

Note that John sketches two personalities.
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MEC good evening.

Why do we argue on the matter of divinity when the language used by the apostle Paul was clear on the Deity of Christ Jesus:


See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Colossians 2:8-14 NASB
http://bible.com/100/col.2.8-14.NASB

How much more Deity does He need to be?

Maybe we need not argue at all. Maybe it's a matter of interpretation. And once someone points out the error of another, they can both come to agreement.

The scripture states that 'in Him' dwells. It does not state that 'He IS'. Big difference.

I would offer that John the Baptist had the 'Spirit of God' dwelling within Him. Perhaps it is as John stated: Jesus had even more of the Spirit of God dwelling within Him. For upon Christ's Baptism, we have the words that John witnessed the Spirit of God descend upon Christ like a dove. Even heard a voice stating, "This is my beloved Son in whom "I" am well pleased". I assume that everyone recognizes that this 'voice' was the "voice of God".

So you have come to interpret the verse you quoted from the perspective of 'trinity'. I have not. I read it and interpret it exactly as offered. And I see nothing in the words offered that would indicate in any manner that Jesus is God. Rather, the Spirit of God dwelt within Christ in a manner greater than any other. For The Son would certainly be more familiar with His Father than any other.

And notice the most important part of the verses you quoted in being able to lead us to a 'better understanding':

having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Now how do you suppose this works? These words state that it was God who raised Him from the Dead. That means that He did 'not' raise Himself. Not the 'working of Himself', but the 'working of God, who raised 'him' from the dead.

Deity? Absolutely. But it does not state that Christ Himself was God. It simply points to the Spirit of God dwelling within the Son.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

These words themselves ought to warn you 'against trinity': 'tradition of men'. For in truth, that is all 'trinity' is: a tradition of men created separately from anything that the apostles ever taught. Men, hundreds of years after the death of Christ created this 'tradition'. And a 'tradition' that more resembles previous pagan religions than anything taught by 'any' prophet, Christ or the apostles.

'rather than according to Christ'.

I ask you: 'Who did Christ state that He was/is'?

Never once did Christ claim to be God. He stated who He was over and over again: The Son of the Living God: The Son of God.

So who has chosen the 'tradition' of men over the simplicity that is Christ Jesus? Who has chosen to place a label upon Him that He never offered nor did any of His apostles?

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If Jesus was not God, then how do you account for John 1?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1: 1-14 (emphasis my own))

I would direct your attention to three clear statements made here concerning "the Word."

1. He was God
2. Without Him nothing was made that was made
3. He became flesh and dwelt among us

The only One in the Bible who could possibly fit this description is Jesus, as neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit became flesh and dwelt (lived) among us. Also, Jesus is the only one referred to as the "only begotten Son" of the Father.

And it is my observation that you have simply bought in to the use of the Capital letter 'W'. That was placed there by those that were 'trinitarians'. An attempt to "make" the word a proper noun. No such capital letter existed in the Greek it was translated from.

How about considering this as a means of determining the nature of 'The Word':

Christ openly states that the words He offered were 'not His own'.

Now, if He were the 'Word of God' referenced in John, how could He possible offer that the words He offered were FROM God but 'not' His own. If He 'were' The Word, not only would the words He offered be His own, He would literally 'be' those words.

So the obvious answer is that those that placed the capital 'W' in Word did so with an intent to represent a preconceived notion of their own. Since they were 'all trinitarians', it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to recognize that they translated what they 'believed'. And in order to make Christ 'The Word', they capitalized the 'W'.

But if you read it without the capital, it offers nothing but what we were offered in Genesis: God spoke existence in to being 'through His Word'. And that word was with God in the beginning. That word 'was' God, (the means by which He stated His will).

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,918
7,998
NW England
✟1,053,556.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The “I AM”

Here we have Jesus speaking to the Jews who wish to kill him,
They wished to kill him because they knew that by using this name, he was claiming to be God.
Whatever else Jesus said that they didn't understand - they understood this.

For example, we certainly can agree Jesus did not exist as a man before Abraham was. To say that he did, would not be true. Obviously, Jesus is not saying he existed as he was when he made that statement. So the question becomes how did he exist? We would need other scripture to clarify as to how he did exist before Abraham was, for this statement does not tell us.

John 1:1-2; John 17:5; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 1:1-2; I Peter 1:20
Jesus is the eternal word; he was God, was with God before creation, sharing his glory.


Knowing the only true God is eternal life.

And Jesus Christ who he sent. In John 6:40 Jesus says that the Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him, shall have eternal life. In John 10:10 Jesus says he came so that we can have life, and in John 14:6 says that he IS the life.


If the Holy Spirit was another person and God, and Jesus was God, then Jesus lied when he said, the Father is the only true God, because He would not be the ONLY true God.

No, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God yet there is only ONE God; these 3 are one. That's the point, but which some people are finding hard to accept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
And it is my observation that you have simply bought in to the use of the Capital letter 'W'. That was placed there by those that were 'trinitarians'. An attempt to "make" the word a proper noun. No such capital letter existed in the Greek it was translated from.

How about considering this as a means of determining the nature of 'The Word':

Christ openly states that the words He offered were 'not His own'.

Now, if He were the 'Word of God' referenced in John, how could He possible offer that the words He offered were FROM God but 'not' His own. If He 'were' The Word, not only would the words He offered be His own, He would literally 'be' those words.

So the obvious answer is that those that placed the capital 'W' in Word did so with an intent to represent a preconceived notion of their own. Since they were 'all trinitarians', it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to recognize that they translated what they 'believed'. And in order to make Christ 'The Word', they capitalized the 'W'.

But if you read it without the capital, it offers nothing but what we were offered in Genesis: God spoke existence in to being 'through His Word'. And that word was with God in the beginning. That word 'was' God, (the means by which He stated His will).

Blessings,

MEC

As we have been over before, ad nauseum, a mere word cannot become incarnate. What is more, John 1:1 does not say "In the beginning was 'a' word, and that word was with God, and that word was spoken by God," it says, rather, "In the beginning was 'the' Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

A word being God does not mean a word is stated by God; the two concepts are quite contradictory.

Maybe we need not argue at all. Maybe it's a matter of interpretation. And once someone points out the error of another, they can both come to agreement.

The scripture states that 'in Him' dwells. It does not state that 'He IS'. Big difference.

Not true; see John 1:1.

I would offer that John the Baptist had the 'Spirit of God' dwelling within Him. Perhaps it is as John stated: Jesus had even more of the Spirit of God dwelling within Him. For upon Christ's Baptism, we have the words that John witnessed the Spirit of God descend upon Christ like a dove. Even heard a voice stating, "This is my beloved Son in whom "I" am well pleased". I assume that everyone recognizes that this 'voice' was the "voice of God".

The dove is the Holy Spirit, the voice is from the Father; the Son, our Lord, is thus established as a person of the Holy Trinity at the events of Theophany.

So you have come to interpret the verse you quoted from the perspective of 'trinity'. I have not. I read it and interpret it exactly as offered.

I daresay you don't.

And I see nothing in the words offered that would indicate in any manner that Jesus is God. Rather, the Spirit of God dwelt within Christ in a manner greater than any other. For The Son would certainly be more familiar with His Father than any other.

This is particularly so owing to their consubstantiality.

And notice the most important part of the verses you quoted in being able to lead us to a 'better understanding':

having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Now how do you suppose this works? These words state that it was God who raised Him from the Dead. That means that He did 'not' raise Himself. Not the 'working of Himself', but the 'working of God, who raised 'him' from the dead.

John 2:19, on the other hand, indicates our Lord raised Himself from the dead.

The only way to reconcile these is to accept that our Lord is God; that St. Paul is referring to His divinity resurrecting His humanity.

Deity? Absolutely. But it does not state that Christ Himself was God. It simply points to the Spirit of God dwelling within the Son.

Not true; see John 1:1-14.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

These words themselves ought to warn you 'against trinity': 'tradition of men'. For in truth, that is all 'trinity' is: a tradition of men created separately from anything that the apostles ever taught. Men, hundreds of years after the death of Christ created this 'tradition'.

Not true; all of the apostles attested to the divinity of our Lord. Rather, it was Arius who, roughly twenty nine decades after Pentecost, sought to promote the error that our Lord was created. It is Arianism that is a false tradition of men; Arianism and related heresies like Soccinianism, which broadly fall under the category of "Monarchism," in turn, went on to form the basis for various non-Christian religions like Islam, Mormonism and the J/W faith.

On the other hand, one cannot identify any non-Christian derivatives of the Nicene faith; the Creed precludes their existence.

And a 'tradition' that more resembles previous pagan religions than anything taught by 'any' prophet, Christ or the apostles.

'rather than according to Christ'.

I ask you: 'Who did Christ state that He was/is'?

Never once did Christ claim to be God. He stated who He was over and over again: The Son of the Living God: The Son of God.

Not true. Our Lord attests to His divinity repeatedly. "Before Abraham was, I AM." "I and the father are one," et cetera. It was quite easy to prove the divinity of our Lord when debating with @Yeholiver.

So who has chosen the 'tradition' of men over the simplicity that is Christ Jesus? Who has chosen to place a label upon Him that He never offered nor did any of His apostles?

Arius and his followers, by declaring our Lord to be a creature.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
647
Home
✟21,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And it is my observation that you have simply bought in to the use of the Capital letter 'W'. That was placed there by those that were 'trinitarians'. An attempt to "make" the word a proper noun. No such capital letter existed in the Greek it was translated from.

How about considering this as a means of determining the nature of 'The Word':

How about it? According to John one, the true nature of the word was God. I believe the text of John 1, not some capitalization added because in English we capitalize proper names as well as God's name out of respect for God.

Christ openly states that the words He offered were 'not His own'.
Jesus often points to the Father as the authoritative person in the Triune God. This is part of the mystery of how we can have one God Who exists as three persons.

Now, if He were the 'Word of God' referenced in John, how could He possible offer that the words He offered were FROM God but 'not' His own. If He 'were' The Word, not only would the words He offered be His own, He would literally 'be' those words.

So the obvious answer is that those that placed the capital 'W' in Word did so with an intent to represent a preconceived notion of their own. Since they were 'all trinitarians', it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to recognize that they translated what they 'believed'. And in order to make Christ 'The Word', they capitalized the 'W'.

But if you read it without the capital, it offers nothing but what we were offered in Genesis: God spoke existence in to being 'through His Word'. And that word was with God in the beginning. That word 'was' God, (the means by which He stated His will).

Blessings,

MEC

The first chapter of John is full of further proofs that the Word is Jesus, which you ignore. It has nothing to do with the capitalization on which you have based your whole argument.

1. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - only true of Jesus
2. John the Baptist bore witness to the Word (Vs. 15) Saying "This is He of Whom I said, "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me." Other gospels record John as giving this exact testimony of Jesus

Once again, the Word is Jesus. John is very careful to write his account in such a way that there is no one else that the Word could be.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Imagican

old dude
Jan 14, 2006
3,027
428
63
Orlando, Florida
✟45,021.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How about it? According to John one, the true nature of the word was God. I believe the text of John 1, not some capitalization added because in English we capitalize proper names as well as God's name out of respect for God.


Jesus often points to the Father as the authoritative person in the Triune God. This is part of the mystery of how we can have one God Who exists as three persons.



The first chapter of John is full of further proofs that the Word is Jesus, which you ignore. It has nothing to do with the capitalization on which you have based your whole argument.

1. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us - only true of Jesus
2. John the Baptist bore witness to the Word (Vs. 15) Saying "This is He of Whom I said, "He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me." Other gospels record John as giving this exact testimony of Jesus

Once again, the Word is Jesus. John is very careful to write his account in such a way that there is no one else that the Word could be.

And that is exactly what I tried to explain: What if the word Word was never meant to be capitalized. What if it is 'not' a person, but a 'thing': God's word. The means by which He presents Himself to that which He has created. You know, what Moses heard when He stood next to the 'burning bush'. Or what the people heard when Moses entered the Holy of the Holies. That 'sound', that verbalization John heard the moment Christ rose from the water and the Spirit of God descended upon Him. That 'word'.

But if one has accepted 'trinity', it's very difficult for them to see beyond any other possibility. Even parts of scripture can't be answered. Can't be comprehended. For 'trinity' limits understanding the moment one accepts it.

Blessings,

MEC
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
647
Home
✟21,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And that is exactly what I tried to explain: What if the word Word was never meant to be capitalized. What if it is 'not' a person, but a 'thing': God's word. The means by which He presents Himself to that which He has created. You know, what Moses heard when He stood next to the 'burning bush'. Or what the people heard when Moses entered the Holy of the Holies. That 'sound', that verbalization John heard the moment Christ rose from the water and the Spirit of God descended upon Him. That 'word'.

But if one has accepted 'trinity', it's very difficult for them to see beyond any other possibility. Even parts of scripture can't be answered. Can't be comprehended. For 'trinity' limits understanding the moment one accepts it.

Blessings,

MEC
No, it's not. Your'e the only one talking about capitalization here. I'm talking about what the text - what the Bible - says.

And the Bible says the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Bible says "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’

This is what the Bible says. Can you please stop trying to quibble over capitalization and address what the text says? That is, to recap:

1. The Word was God
2. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (i.e. He became a person)
3. John the Baptist bore witness of the Word, saying "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'" (John the Baptist only said that about Jesus)
4. The Word is a He, not an it

Capitalized or uncapitalized, John makes it clear Who he is talking about when he says the Word. He leaves no room for doubt.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The scripture states that 'in Him' dwells. It does not state that 'He IS'. Big difference.

Has that Deity 'left' Jesus Christ since Paul spoke and wrote those words?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you have come to interpret the verse you quoted from the perspective of 'trinity'. I have not. I read it and interpret it exactly as offered. And I see nothing in the words offered that would indicate in any manner that Jesus is God. Rather, the Spirit of God dwelt within Christ in a manner greater than any other. For The Son would certainly be more familiar with His Father than any other.

I was first addressing the Deity of the Son of God Jesus Christ.

So what is the nature of Jesus Christ from your perspective? How was God His Father? Or do you believe Joseph was the real father of Jesus Christ?

Or as with Oneness adherents you see a regular man Jesus of Nazareth at some point is filled with the Holy Spirit and becomes the Son of God at that point?



Have you considered Jesus Christ is both the Son of man and Son of God? That He had to be fully man and fully God in order to reconcile death through Adam?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
"....We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know the true God. We are in union with the one who is true, his Son Jesus the Messiah, who is the true God and eternal life." - 1 John 5:20(ISV)

Note that John sketches two personalities.


Yes, I did not mean for this to be complete, for there is faith, and Gospel of the kingdom, baptism, obeying, love that goes with knowing the true God, ...and so forth.

I was emphasizing that we must know who the only true God is Mark 12:28-29. Yes we must know who Jesus is as well, and as well that he came in the flesh, in other words that he was a man, for it is very important that he was a man like us, otherwise animals would have sufficed, being created on the same day, with a mortal body, having the same breath of life, yet without sin, and for that matter God.

Did God really say, He is not a man, ...did He really say, He could not squeeze into a body of a man?
If he did not come down to earth to be born as a baby, did he just pretend to Goo and Gaa, and grow in wisdom? Or was there a baby that talked like an adult man with all wisdom?

I'm not saying you said these things, just saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Deity? Absolutely. But it does not state that Christ Himself was God. It simply points to the Spirit of God dwelling within the Son.

There is much difference with the use of 'divine' and 'full' 'filling' 'filled' in the Greek compared to full Deity and dwell.

A breakdown. When the disciples were referred to as filled with, full of the Holy Spirit these are the words used:

plērēs: πλήρης plḗrēs, play'-race; from G4130; replete, or covered over; by analogy, complete:—full.

As in Acts chapter 6:3:

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full G4134 of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

So we have above and in many places in the OT and NT the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God upon, being filled with, but nothing compares to the following.

Compare Colossians chapter 2:9

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Deity: theotēs: the state of being God, Godhead

This is the only use of 'theotes' in the NT Greek Lexicon. Nowhere else do we see it used to clearly denote the Deity bodily dwelling in Christ Jesus. No other instance of someone being filled with the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit uses this distinct use of 'theotes.' Some come close but all refer to the Divine Nature of God.

As noted by Synonyms of the New Testament :: Richard C. Trench:

But in the second passage (Col. 2:9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person for a season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses θεότης to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son; (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=2)

The following is by permission of Dr. Gary Butner ThD.

The Kenosis of Jesus Christ
by Gary Butner, Th.D.

The Kenosis of Jesus Christ: Does Philippians 2:5-8 State Christ Emptied Himself of His Deity?
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”Phil 2:5-8 NASB1995

What happened in the Incarnation of Christ? Did He empty Himself of deity and become a mere man who was previously God, man minus God, a man-God? Did He continue as both fully God and fully man, a God-man?
There are two basic views Bible scholars have of the Philippians passage. The first is the Kenotic Theory, and states that Christ emptied Himself of the relative attributes of Omnipotence[1], Omniscience[2], and Omnipresence[3], which only deity possesses. This view clearly denies the Biblical doctrine of the Immutability[4] of Christ as found in Hebrews 13:8.[5]
The Kenotic Theory was first scientifically formulated by Thomasius in Germany, [6](1860 to 1880) and later by theologians in England (1890 to 1910). Prior to that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:7 meant the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes.

The Philippians passage does not say that Christ "emptied himself of some powers" or "emptied himself of divine attributes" or anything like that. The words “of His deity” simply are not in the passage. The Kenotic Theory is based on an assumption regarding what “emptied” means and references, not upon what the Bible actually says.
Regarding verse 7, the UBS Handbook Series states, “The verb "to empty" has given rise to the so-called "kenotic" theory of incarnation. Undue theological exploitations have cast a heavy shadow on its meaning. It should be said at the outset that the verb must be understood metaphorically, not metaphysically. It says nothing about Christ stripping himself of his divine attributes as has sometimes been suggested.”
AND
”The verb ‘to empty’ is used elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles four times (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor. l:17; 9:15; 9:3), and in each instance it is used metaphorically in the sense of ‘to bring to nothing,’ ‘to make worthless,’ or ‘to empty of significance.’ (from the UBS Handbook Series. Copyright (c) 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies)
The second view is known as the Hypostatic Union, and states Christ continued in the Incarnation as fully God and became fully man.

The Hypostatic Union is and has been the orthodox view received by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant New Testament scholars throughout the ages, and later by those in the Restoration Movement. This is confirmed in the creeds and writings of the early church fathers. While the churches of Christ and Christian Churches do not accept human creeds as having the authority of Scripture, the majority of Restoration scholars do accept the creedal statements as faithfully reflecting the Bible. See Creeds

In contrast to the Kenotic view, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus most certainly claimed to be God while on earth. (cf. John 3:13; 5:18; 10:33; 17:5). “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58 Here Jesus declared Himself to be Yahweh, i.e., the God of the Old Testament. I AM, is one of the names of God, and also states Christ is present in eternity outside of time. It was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity (see Ex. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:6; 47:8). The high priest's reaction to Jesus' use of the title, in Mark 14:61-63, suggests that he considered Jesus' utterance of it as being a blasphemous claim to deity.

Explicit statements of the NT indicate that Jesus retained his divine nature and attributes (Matt.1:23; 11:27; Mark 1:1; John 3:13 AV; 14:9; Rom. 1:4). Examples of Jesus manifesting divine attributes include: omniscience (John 4:16-19; 2:24,25; 6:64; Luke 5:4-6), omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13), and omnipotence (Luke 4:39; 8:54-55; Matt. 8:26,27).

"To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity. Of course, references to His deity abound in Scripture (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8). And by the way, this is not only affirmed by the Bible, it's clearly affirmed by the creeds." Hank Hannagraf, CRI Perspective CP1207

Critical to a correct understanding of the kenosis passage is a proper exegesis of verse 6. “Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,” The Amplified Bible

The Greek has two words for form, morphē and schēma. Paul connects the stronger morphē with theou (God) in verse 6. Morphē is the essential form, which never alters; schēma is the outward form which changes. Some versions translate schēma as fashion. The essential morphē of a human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schēma is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphē of humanity, but the outward schēma changes all the time.[7] The essential morphē of Christ’s deity never changed. Likewise, Hebrews 13:8 (NIV) states, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” These confirm the doctrine of the immutability of God, and makes a literal emptying inconceivable.

The schēma of Jesus’ humanity did change starting at the Incarnation, at His birth, later as He grew physically, at the crucifixion, and finally when he received His glorified body at the resurrection.

One cannot be 25%, 50%, or even 99.9% God. To be anything less than all that God has declared Himself to be, is to not be God. In John 5:18, “Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” NIV The Greek word for “equal” defines things that are exactly the same in size, quantity, quality, character, and number. (Bauer’s lexicon) In every sense, Jesus is equal to God and constantly claimed to be so during His earthly ministry (cf. John 5:18; 10:33, 38; 14:9; 20:28; Heb. 1:1–3).

The text does describe what Jesus did in this "emptying": he did not do it by divesting himself of any of his attributes but rather by " taking the very form (morphē) of a servant," that is, coming to live as a man, and "being found in human form (schēma), he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this "emptying" as equivalent to "humbling himself" and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, “He emptied himself," translates it, "but made himself nothing" (Phil. 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature.

Rather than asserting the right to enjoy a glorious visage (i.e., as in the transfiguration), Jesus rather knew that the objective of the Father called for his humbling. And that, indeed, for us to be able to interact with him, the humbling would be needed. It was for US that Jesus took on this schēma.

Obviously, a man who was God (man-God), and one who is both fully God and fully man (God-man) at the same time are two different beings. Furthermore, the Kenotic Jesus does not speak with the same authority to his followers as the Christ of the Bible. One is fallible and voices his ideas and opinion, whereas the Christ of the Bible speaks to His followers with absolute certainty. (by permission of Dr. Gary Butner evidenceforjesuschrist.org)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncle Siggy
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
They wished to kill him because they knew that by using this name, he was claiming to be God.
Whatever else Jesus said that they didn't understand - they understood this.

Because they picked up stones to kill him they understood? Not sure how that reasoning works? They were looking for any reason to kill him, and when they arrested him they were still looking for a reason. Sounds like they weren't to confident in their accusations.

John 17:5. . .Jesus. . .was with God before creation, sharing his glory.

Here is something to think about. Jesus said, “before the world was,” why is he going all the way back there? He also said, “for You loved me before the foundation of the world.” Why is he pointing all the way back then? Did God not love him between the foundation of the world and his incarnation? And you''ll notice, this is the clue, in that same verse 24 he said, “my glory which You have given me,”, he says “have given,” but he has not received this glory yet, for he is asking for this glory “glorify Me” in verse 5. So what's he referring to?


Sure, and I could prove Jesus is God, because he did not have a mother and a father, or Father nor having neither beginning of days, nor end of life [Hebrews 7:3], as many do. Which I use to believe at one time, but once you keep it in context, this is not what this is saying at all. Yet, many leaders of all sorts who teach the Bible, as well on this site, still teach this as this is what it means.

I'm fully aware of those passage you presented, and I've shown what they are saying in other post/threads on this site, but you have to be open to receive, because I've already shown a verse that clearly states the Father is the only true God, and there's more passages. Trinity uses vague verses, or take it out of context, I know cause I use to do the same thing, when I was taught to believe in the trinity, but now I don't care about proving my point. It's not necessarily we take them out of context on purpose, it's just how, many of us, have been taught to interpret the scriptures; precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little, but that's not what that passage is saying, in fact it has the opposite meaning.

Isaiah 28:13 Therefore shall the word of Jehovah be unto them [those that mock His prophets] precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The very opposite of how many teach it today.


May I ask you, what part of God the Son remained God the Son at his incarnation, body, soul, spirit?
 
Upvote 0

7xlightray

Newbie
Jun 30, 2013
515
29
✟15,256.00
Faith
Christian
I would just like to point out, dwells is in the Present Indicative. When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time, which fits the passage.

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

This refers to after his resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

cgaviria

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,854
184
37
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Visit site
✟23,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I would just like to point out, dwells is in the Present Indicative. When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time, which fits the passage.

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

This refers to after his resurrection.

May I ask what exactly you are trying to say? You are being slightly vague.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would just like to point out, dwells is in the Present Indicative. When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time, which fits the passage.

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

This refers to after his resurrection.

What was the nature of Jesus Christ before the Resurrection if not the fullness of the Godhead bodily was present?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.