A simple question with a simple answer.

[Der Alte]

What the blazes r u talking about Der Alter? You don't know the difference between the Greek Theos and the Hebrew Elohim?

I most certainly do know the difference between the Greek Theos and the Hebrew Elohim. That is why I said "Which manuscripts for instance? The NT was written in Greek. There are no Hebrew words for God in the NT." You keep inserting "Elohim" into NT texts as you do with John 10:35, below.

I know you know what I am talking about so stop with the condescending baloney.
I don't have access to any original Greek manuscripts so how about we rely on just a plain old Greek interlinear like Biblehub.com.
Go to John 10:35 If he called them gods(elohim), unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
where Jesus is quoting Psalms 82 we know He would have spoken the Hebrew Elohim.

I just went to Bible Hub and the interlinear does not have Elohim either. We cannot assume that Jesus used the Hebrew Elohim. Even if He did we cannot arbitrarily insert Elohim anywhere we want to since it does not appear in any Greek text.

In the Greek the plural form of Theos, or theous (θεοὺ&#962 is used, and it occurs with some rarity in the NT. So it appears to me that the NT does not refer to Elohim much. Theos or Theou seems to refer to El. It seems the Greek NT follows the Septuagint convention of substituting Kurios for YWHW and Adon, so we can't tell the difference there at all - one of the things which has become frustrating for me as I have learned more about scriptural translation. I was hoping the Peshitta Matthew might reveal secrets there, but alas, I think we need more textual evidence to make such a determination without divine intervention.

The NT Peshitta is back translated from the Greek.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . Plural, singular, these are really insignificant when reading these words:

God said, "Let there be light". As far as the definition offered to the Hebrews, God is UTTERLY singular in that there is ONLY 'one God', and NO OTHER Gods beside Him. What men have tried to add TO that since then is pretty irrelevant to what matters MOST: God's WORD, not the word of MEN.

I don't speak Greek. Do you suppose that it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to KNOW God because He required me to speak or understand Greek? Or, let's be even more specific: Is GREEK the language OF GOD?

Ok. So if Greek isn't the language of God, just a language used to record his word, why weren't those that translated the language to English competent enough? It seems rather FOOLISH to even CONTEMPLATE that God would allow His Word to be hidden from men for the past TWO thousand years until YOU good folk came along to 'get it right'. Pretty presumptuous in my opinion.

So many have such a difficult time discerning what has already been translated that it seems like DENIAL to insist that it has NEVER been translated correctly to begin with. Instead of trying to ALTER it, wouldn't it make MORE sense to first start trying to UNDERSTAND it as OFFERED? For how would one even BEGIN to determine which words were MEANT to be used in translation UNLESS 'THEY' believe that somehow THEY are MORE inspired than the men that have ALREADY DONE IT. . .

The problem is that there are a lot of folks around who want to tell others "what the Bible really says" and when that happens the only solution is go to the original language for the correct meaning of the words. Unwary people can be misled by self appointed experts claiming to teach "what the Bible really says." There is one religious group who has published a book titled "What Does The Bible Really Teach?" which twists scripture to support their false doctrine.

 

[KWCrazy]

So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?

It was light.
It no longer exists, because it became the sun, moon and stars, all of which are said to have come from a single entity and firmed almost instantly.
The light provided illumination for a rotating planet, thus demarcating the evenings and mornings of the first three days.
It's really not more complex than that.

While it is true that Jesus is the light of the world, God didn't use Him for a flashlight. He used him to shed light on a dark and sinful world and to show us the pathway to salvation.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I most certainly do know the difference between the Greek Theos and the Hebrew Elohim. That is why I said "Which manuscripts for instance? The NT was written in Greek. There are no Hebrew words for God in the NT." You keep inserting "Elohim" into NT texts as you do with John 10:35, below.

I'm mot sure if you just like being difficult sometimes or what. It doesn't really matter which Greek transcripts you use, since they all basically use the plural Theous for Jesus' quote of Psalm 82's use of Elohim.

I just went to Bible Hub and the interlinear does not have Elohim either. We cannot assume that Jesus used the Hebrew Elohim. Even if He did we cannot arbitrarily insert Elohim anywhere we want to since it does not appear in any Greek text.

Which is why I said:
"In the Greek the plural form of Theos, or theous (θεοὺ&#962 is used, and it occurs with some rarity in the NT. So it appears to me that the NT does not refer to Elohim much." It is obvious you know what I am talking about, but you keep trying to infer that I somehow believe the Hebrew Elohim is being used in the NT. If you are just going to play around, I have better things to do with my time, and will leave you to have your fun with others.

The NT Peshitta is back translated from the Greek.

Then how is it that it ends up with the word "rope" from the Greek "camelos" for camel?

 

[Der Alte]

I'm mot sure if you just like being difficult sometimes or what. It doesn't really matter which Greek transcripts you use, since they all basically use the plural Theous for Jesus' quote of Psalm 82's use of Elohim.

I agree "Theous" not "Elohim!"

Which is why I said:
"In the Greek the plural form of Theos, or theous (θεοὺ&#962 is used, and it occurs with some rarity in the NT. So it appears to me that the NT does not refer to Elohim much." It is obvious you know what I am talking about, but you keep trying to infer that I somehow believe the Hebrew Elohim is being used in the NT. If you are just going to play around, I have better things to do with my time, and will leave you to have your fun with others.

Because you keep inserting the word "elohim" in your posts, as you did in John 10:35 in your previous post! So if you don't want me to comment on it perhaps you should refrain from interpolating "Elohim" in the NT.

Then how is it that it ends up with the word "rope" from the Greek "camelos" for camel?

I don't know why the "translators" of the Peshitta translated kamelos as rope. You would have to ask them but the sources i consulted said the Peshitta was back translated from the Greek. Both Clement of Alexandria, c.150-215, and Origen, c.185-c.254, quote Matt 19:24, camel.

The Quran has something similar.

Surat Al-'A`rāf
7:40... and are arrogant toward them - the gates of Heaven will not ... , nor will they enter Paradise until a camel enters into the eye of a needle ... . And thus do We recompense the ...​

 

[Norah63]

When we stand in His presence, and gaze in Jesus beautiful eyes, will we need to tell Him of our great wisdom and learning?
Not to put it down, just to put it in its proper place.
Any light we possess is Jesus in us, the hope of glory....

 

[Radagast]

So the question is: What was THE LIGHT that was created IN THE BEGINNING. You know, the light that was created BEFORE the stars, Sun and MOON?

There are several answers within Judaism and within Christianity. Some have seen the light as metaphorical, some as literal (with some modern commentators seeing a connection to the light from the Big Bang, which existed before the stars).

In some Jewish interpretations, it was a special kind of "primordial light." In others, "the universe became lighted up and pervaded throughout with the divine life which preserves it for the common weal and happiness of created and animated beings." St Augustine saw this as referring to the creation of the angels.

For you SEE, when this question is answered, it utterly destroys the entire premise of 'trinity'. It destroys the ENTIRE premise of The Word being Christ.

Nonsense. It does nothing of the kind.

And you shouldn't be using a "Christian seeker" faith icon here on CF if you deny the Trinity. That icon is for orthodox Christians only.

 

[Radagast]

Which manuscripts for instance? The NT was written in Greek. There are no Hebrew words for God in the NT.

True.

The problem is that there are a lot of folks around who want to tell others "what the Bible really says" and when that happens the only solution is go to the original language for the correct meaning of the words. Unwary people can be misled by self appointed experts claiming to teach "what the Bible really says."

Also true.

At the very least, one should go to a reliable modern translation, such as the ESV or HCSB. The KJV isn't a great translation, and the archaic language confuses many people.

I don't have access to any original Greek manuscripts so how about we rely on just a plain old Greek interlinear like Biblehub.com.
Go to John 10:35 If he called them gods(elohim), unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

John 10:34-35 reads ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὑμῶν ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε; εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεούς, πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος ἐγένετο τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή· -- that's "theoi," not "elohim."

where Jesus is quoting Psalms 82 we know He would have spoken the Hebrew Elohim.

Really? The bolded quote from Psalm 82 is word-for-word from the Greek Septuagint (numbered Psalm 81 there). It is quite likely that Jesus quoted from that.

And you do have access to the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript here.

 

[Imagican]

The problem is that there are a lot of folks around who want to tell others "what the Bible really says" and when that happens the only solution is go to the original language for the correct meaning of the words. Unwary people can be misled by self appointed experts claiming to teach "what the Bible really says." There is one religious group who has published a book titled "What Does The Bible Really Teach?" which twists scripture to support their false doctrine.

Der Alter,

At ONE POINT, we have to make a decision: Has the Bible been sufficiently translated or not? Is God powerful enough to preserve His Word? And what is of even MORE importance: Has God offered understanding simple enough that a 'child' could understand it?

I made the decision many years ago that, YES, God is capable of inspiring men to translate His Word PROPERLY and it was DONE. Yes, God is MORE than powerful enough to preserve His Word. And having read the Bible many many times, I have come to the conclusion: "YES, a child of about the age of ten, if inspired to do so, could read God's Word and UNDERSTAND the majority of it.

When I was about 13, I wanted to learn to water ski. And I didn't want to learn to use TWO skis, but ONE. So the man teaching me said, "HANG ON to the handle, keep your ski straight and then stand up".

After about the third attempt to pull me up, he brought the boat back around and said, "You're TRYING TOO HARD. Just remember what i said and LET IT HAPPEN". I grabbed the rope handle, he took off and I stood up and began to ski. I did exactly what he suggested: I just LET IT HAPPEN.

I kind of feel that it's the same way with understanding of ANY sort. If we try to FORCE the information many times it ends up being DIFFERENT than if we just 'let it happen'. Instead of FIGHTING to make things FIT the way we would LIKE them to, it's most often BETTER and more efficient to 'take our time' and kind of just, let it happen.

It's when men start trying to read INTO the Bible things that are of their OWN design that they run into trouble. When people AREN'T willing to 'take their time' and LET it happen that they start interjecting things that may not be as they were MEANT to be.

I think that the story of creation offered in Genesis was designed for us to UNDERSTAND. Not EVERY detail of 'creation', for that is not what the information was designed to deliver. But a basic understanding of the order in which creation took place.

So, are the words offered in Genesis a MISTAKE in translation? If so, it would seem that EVERY version of the Bible made the SAME mistakes. I choose to accept the account as offered.

And in the VERY beginning God said, "Let there be light". But it wasn't until the fourth day that physical light was created. So it's OBVIOUS to ME that the light created in the 'very beginning' was DIFFERENT than 'physical light'. So, if the words were placed there, it's OBVIOUS that they were placed there for UNDERSTANDING. I don't believe that RANDOM words are offered in the Bible. EVERYTHING that is offered in God's Word has a purpose and that purpose is for 'our edification': ENLIGHTENMENT, EDUCATION, UNDERSTANDING, FAITH, HOPE.

That means that the words offered concerning the light created in the very beginning has MEANING.

Where do we FIND the answer? It's offered over and over in the NT that Jesus is the LIGHT of this world. Well, we KNOW that isn't referring to PHYSICAL light. But, WAIT, we have a 'light' mentioned in the VERY beginning of 'creation' that isn't PHYSICAL light either. And we have words in the Bible that STATE that Jesus, God's SON, was the 'beginning of the 'creation' of God. We have the words that Jesus was the 'firstborn of every creature', (indicative of being created FIRST before any other creature). And we are also told that ALL things were created by God through Christ. And it is MY belief that this is in reference to ALL things pertaining to those to whom these words were written.

So what happens when we compare the words offered in the very beginning to words offered later meant to bring about understanding?

Or, do YOU believe that the Bible is just a bunch of random words without any REAL purpose or meaning?

If you BELIEVE that what we are offered is offered for us to UNDERSTAND it, then there MUST be some simple UNDERSTANDING concerning the 'light' created in the very beginning verses the LIGHTS that were created in the fourth day. I believe that the answer couldn't be more obvious. I believe that one has to START somewhere and then additional information can be offered AFTER one understands what is offered in the 'beginning'.

But let's approach this from a different angle. Let's pretend that the OT doesn't even exist for a moment.

When the word "Light" is used to DEFINE Christ or as another NAME for Christ, what does it MEAN? It surely doesn't mean PHYSICAL 'light'. For surely there was 'physical light' BEFORE Christ was manifest in the FLESH. So what does it mean to refer to Christ as 'The Light'?

Answer this and then the words used in the very beginning make PERFECT sense.

But I can offer this: if your understanding has been biased by MAN MADE DOCTRINE, it can often be very difficult to SEE the TRUTH on your own. And the proof of this is manifest in the myriad 'cults' that exist in 'Christianity'. Someone TAUGHT men what to believe and from that point on that's ALL they are LOOKING for. The words offered in the Bible can be manipulated BEYOND any TRUE understanding.

But if you 'just let it happen'. If you can LET GO of preconceived notions or false teachings, most of the time it will JUST COME TO YOU: the TRUTH. For it is offered in a manner that even CHILDREN CAN understand it.

Here is what I believe: I sincerely believe that any and everyone that has ever NOTICED that there were TWO separate 'creations' of LIGHT in the first chapter of Genesis KNOWS what the FIRST light was/IS. But some choose to IGNORE what it SAYS for the sake of DOCTRINE created by men and taught to them instead of the TRUTH. In other words, it is my FIRM belief that since I posed this question, everyone that has read it KNOWS the answer whether they will ADMIT it or NOT. And the ONLY REASON that ANYONE would deny UNDERSTANDING of EXACTLY what that 'light' IS would be 'man made doctrine' that is in conflict with the TRUTH. Easier to IGNORE the issue than outright ACCEPT it.

But in TRUTH, the words couldn't be offered MORE clearly. And for those that have been lucky enough to have the Bible to read, once they have READ the WHOLE book, it becomes even MORE clear what that 'first light' was/IS: Jesus Christ. The SON of God was BEGOTTEN at the moment God said, "Let there be light". For Jesus Christ IS the LIGHT of this world. No, not PHYSICAL light. Something that goes FAR beyond there mere presence of electrons. Christ is THE Light involved with ALL 'true LIFE'. While physical life is NEEDED to sustain life, there was another Light responsible for the very CREATION of LIFE to begin with. The 'second light', physical light, wasn't NEEDED until there was LIFE that NEEDED it. But the LIGHT responsible for 'creation' itself was also responsible for the creation of physical light as well.

And Der Alter, I'm NOT 'making anything up'. I'm simply pointing out how SIMPLE the understanding TRULY is. Not 'rocket science'. Simple words able to be understood by simple men. Nothing complicated until one tries to make RULES that prevent the truth from FITTING IN. And that is WHY I offer, "Just let it happen". Instead of trying to FORCE one's OWN understanding into God's Word, just LET God's Word HAPPEN. It's amazing how easily it FITS into it's OWN understanding once one develops this tactic.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

There are several answers within Judaism and within Christianity. Some have seen the light as metaphorical, some as literal (with some modern commentators seeing a connection to the light from the Big Bang, which existed before the stars).

Nice GUESSES. But what about the Word? Why not just ACCEPT what the Word offers concerning the 'light'? You see, talking AROUND an issue that has a CLEAR path to understanding is what leads men to MAKE UP things of their OWN design instead of simply accepting what has ALREADY been created and defined by God through His Son. In other words, what does the BIBLE tell us this 'light' was/IS?????

In some Jewish interpretations, it was a special kind of "primordial light." In others, "the universe became lighted up and pervaded throughout with the divine life which preserves it for the common weal and happiness of created and animated beings." St Augustine saw this as referring to the creation of the angels.

Well, we're not Jewish are we. And we aren't LIMITED to Judaic understanding EITHER are we. We have a COMPLETE Bible NOW that didn't exist THEN. So whatever understanding the Jews came up with would by necessity be FLAWED now wouldn't it? I mean if the UNDERSTANDING hadn't been REVEALED yet, then whatever one tried to MAKE UP wouldn't REALLY be understanding would it?


Nonsense. It does nothing of the kind.

Why is it 'nonsense'? If 'trinity' insists that Jesus was NOT 'created'. That there was NEVER a time BEFORE Christ. Then this concept of God begetting His Son upon the 'creation of the Light' would utterly destroy the IDEA that Christ is EQUAL to God in eternity. If not co equal, then He cannot BE God according to 'trinity'.

And when we are given the instruction that Jesus is the ONLY "Begotten" Son of God, why would God use this word if it didn't have the SAME meaning as it is used every where else in the Bible? If the Bible was written in order to bring about understanding, TRUE understanding, why would God leave it up to MEN to alter the MEANING of the word begotten? Why OFFER this word AT ALL in the Word if it doesn't mean what it's DEFINITION defines it AS MEANING?

In other words, EVERY OTHER use of the word is Perfectly Clear. But when it comes to 'trinity', those that created the concept had to actually CHANGE the MEANING of the word when used in reference to Christ. WHY? Why does 'begotten' mean something DIFFERENT in reference to GOD'S Son than it does in reference to ANY son? Don't you see how SILLY the idea is? That in order to MAKE a 'man made doctrine' FIT, those that created it were forced to actually ALTER the meaning of words to MAKE it fit. And it still doesn't FIT after ALL the altering. For those that created the concept, (doctrine), openly admit that it cannot be COMPREHENDED. Now if that isn't LUDICROUS there isn't anything that FITS it's definition. "Hey, I've got an IDEA. It makes NO sense and even when you admit that you believe it you still can't UNDERSTAND it."

Or better yet, explain WHY Godhead wasn't GOOD enough? Why men felt compelled to replace what we ARE offered in the Bible with a concept that we are NOT? For this is what we are offered CONCERNING the Godhead:

Acts 17:29


Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Yet that is EXACTLY what 'trinity' IS. It is a concept NEVER offered in the Bible. That is WHY there was such a schism boiling up when men BEGAN to alter the Bible into RULES and LAWS that simply are NOT THERE. "Trinity" is a MAN MADE concept that forced the men that created it to actually ALTER understanding of the Bible in order to make it FIT.

YOU show me ONE line of the Bible that TELLS us that we MUST follow the POPE or the Catholic Church or any OTHER organization or ANY of it's LAWS or RULES. ONE LINE in the NT.

You see, there aren't ANY. For THE law was offered by Christ which DESTROYED any semblance of the PREVIOUS manner of LAW or RULE: LOVE. And instead of laws or rules being written on tablets of stone or paper, they are NOW written upon the hearts of those that can SEE.

Yet the MEN that created this TRINITY decided to walk BACKWARDS and instead of teaching the FREEDOM from the law which Christ fulfilled, they created their OWN NEW SET of laws and rules. Going BACKWARDS, they ended up in the SAME situation that the Jews were in at the time of Christ. Making up so many rules and laws that even those responsible couldn't keep up with all of them. When the TRUTH was, ALL the laws given by God through the prophets were meant to be TEACHERS. And teachers of ONE THING: LOVE.

So, please show us in the Word where men are given permission to MAKE UP whatever they CHOOSE so far as LAWS and RULES are concerned. If you can DO THIS, then I'll MORE than consider 'trinity'. But if you can't, then it is merely the notions of MEN bent on POWER that introduced their OWN ideas in the forming of their OWN 'religion'.

Nonsense? I would offer that a doctrine that insists it is incomprehensible is NONsense.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Radagast]

Then this concept of God begetting His Son upon the 'creation of the Light'

Genesis 1 does not refer to the creation of God the Son. Rather, several NT passages (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2) tell us that God the Son was the agent of creation.

And when we are given the instruction that Jesus is the ONLY "Begotten" Son of God

Are you referring to John 1:14 (And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. -- καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.)?

That verse does not contain the word "begotten." The Greek word, which occurs also in Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38, does not mean "begotten."

But I will not discuss this further with you while you continue to hide behind an "orthodox Christian" icon.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

So this "created" light then cannot be the same thing Saint John speaks of - "the Word" by which "all things" created were made. The NT appears very simply to declare that God the Father created everything "that is", through/by His Word which was "with Him" in the beginning. And clearly His Word is His Son, Jesus Christ.

Am not sure how to see it as being simpler to suggest the NT and specifically Saint John really meant that everything that "is" was made by the Son except Himself, which is suggested by saying the Son is the "light" created first by His Father and then everything else by the light.

Saint John did not say in the beginning "after" the Father made His Word/Son/the Light. So I cannot agree it would be simpler to understand the creation story one way and have the NT contradict that understanding.

I would also not agree that it is simpler to hold an understanding of the Father being at some point without His Word - as it suggests a God evolving and also in need (lacking something) at least until one has Him making "the light".

 

[Ripheus27]

@The OP, this argument is not new, it's one Jehovah's Witnesses have used.

Also, even if the Light is Christ, it could just be that the human body used by God the Son existed before the stars, etc. Or it could mean that God wrote the story of the world by starting with the character of the human Son, so the idea of the Son was first in the reasons for things as they were created in the world of the divine story.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Or it could be God is not like us at all and there are Three that are One God, with the Light/Son/Word (not the human He would become) existed (was "with" as Saint John says) in the Beginning with the Father (and the Spirit).

 

[Imagican]

It was light.
It no longer exists, because it became the sun, moon and stars, all of which are said to have come from a single entity and firmed almost instantly.
The light provided illumination for a rotating planet, thus demarcating the evenings and mornings of the first three days.
It's really not more complex than that.

While it is true that Jesus is the light of the world, God didn't use Him for a flashlight. He used him to shed light on a dark and sinful world and to show us the pathway to salvation.

You admit that Jesus IS the 'Light' of this world. Yet you indicate that it is NOT reasonable to gather that the FIRST light God created WAS the 'light of this world'.

The Bible SAYS that Christ was the FIRSTBORN of every 'creature'. When identifying Himself in Revelation 3, Christ HIMSELF states that 'He is the BEGINNING of the 'creation of God'.

But this isn't ENOUGH to clearly SEE that the 'light' created in the VERY beginning was Christ?

See how difficult it is to answer questions correctly when one allows MAN MADE doctrine to 'get in the way'? For if one DID NOT already BELIEVE that Christ was NOT 'created', then it would FIT PERFECTLY without any REASON to doubt it.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

@The OP, this argument is not new, it's one Jehovah's Witnesses have used.

Also, even if the Light is Christ, it could just be that the human body used by God the Son existed before the stars, etc. Or it could mean that God wrote the story of the world by starting with the character of the human Son, so the idea of the Son was first in the reasons for things as they were created in the world of the divine story.

Well now, since I'm NOT a JW, I can't say what they BELIEVE. But I can offer this: I have spoken to at LEAST a DOZEN 'different' JWs about this very scenario. EVERY ONE of them indicated that they thought I was CRAZY when I introduced the IDEA. They made NO indication whatsoever that this IDEA is common understanding among the JWs. While it may well be. I have received NO indication whatsoever that it IS.

You know, having studied 'trinity' for close to twenty years now, what I have come to understand is that 'trinity' does ONLY ONE THING: 'Trinity' turns Christ INTO God. Nothing else. With all the argument and all the attempted manipulation of scripture, ALL the effort was expended for ONE purpose: turn Christ INTO God. And the ONLY REASON that men wanted to make a 'God' out of Christ was so that they could WORSHIP the Son AS God.

Yet if we actually READ the Bible from beginning to End in the manner it has been composed, the Bible does NOT teach us that Jesus IS God. As a matter of FACT, the Bible teaches JUST the opposite: That Jesus IS NOT God.

From the beginning when God first introduced Himself to the Hebrews, He STATED that there are NO OTHER Gods BESIDE Him. It doesn't mention the Son. For in the beginning there was no REASON to mention the Son.

But we DO have the word US used in 'creation'. But that doesn't mean that US is in reference to MULTI persons in ONE God. It is in reference to GODHEAD. God is the HEAD of Christ as Christ is the HEAD of man as Man is the HEAD of woman.

And isn't it kind of suspect that NON 'trinitarians' have NO problem answering this question or accepting the answer to this question, but 'trinitarians' are left to offer speculation and GUESSWORK instead of an ANSWER. And to ME, it is a VERY simple answer. Not complicated in the least.

Or, do 'trinitarians' believe that the words were offered with NO explanation? Or that the words were a MISTAKE and have NO meaning? The Bible tells us that ALL scripture is offered for our edification. So unless the words pertaining to God creating a 'light' SEPARATE from physical light is a MISTAKE or MEANINGLESS, what OTHER explanation exists? If the words ARE for our EDIFICATION, there can be NO edification without UNDERSTANDING. So what is THE understanding of the LIGHT created in the VERY beginning?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

So this "created" light then cannot be the same thing Saint John speaks of - "the Word" by which "all things" created were made. The NT appears very simply to declare that God the Father created everything "that is", through/by His Word which was "with Him" in the beginning. And clearly His Word is His Son, Jesus Christ.

Am not sure how to see it as being simpler to suggest the NT and specifically Saint John really meant that everything that "is" was made by the Son except Himself, which is suggested by saying the Son is the "light" created first by His Father and then everything else by the light.

Saint John did not say in the beginning "after" the Father made His Word/Son/the Light. So I cannot agree it would be simpler to understand the creation story one way and have the NT contradict that understanding.

I would also not agree that it is simpler to hold an understanding of the Father being at some point without His Word - as it suggests a God evolving and also in need (lacking something) at least until one has Him making "the light".

See, you are ALLOWING the 'trinity' concept to cloud your ability to SEE. You are trying to say that you can't SEE how it could be DIFFERENT. But the only thing that would complicate the matter IS 'trinity'. What you are basically saying is that for what I'm offering to be TRUTH then "trinity" would be destroyed. But instead of SAYING this, you are trying to indicate you can't SEE how it could be any other way.

In the 'beginning' was NOT a singular event. It was a SERIES of events. We don't have to guess at that. Creation took place in an ORDER.

Now, you indicate that John's words would contradict what I have offered. I say you only WANT John's words to contradict what I've offered. But what about this: What ABOUT the words straight out of the Bible that would contradict John's words as you have offered them.

Christ STATES that He IS: 'the beginning of the creation of God'. Well, instead of a need for you to TRUST my words, let me QUOTE it straight out of the BIBLE:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

So which fits BETTER? Your idea that EVERYTHING was created through Christ? Or that 'all things pertaining to LIFE' were created through Christ. For the Bible PLAINLY says that 'in the VERY beginning God created the Earth and the heavens. But that at the VERY beginning they were VOID and without FORM. And at that TIME, in the VERY beginning, there was ONLY DARKNESS. And His NEXT words were, "Let there be light". And we KNOW that Christ, the Son of God, IS the LIGHT of this world. And we KNOW that neither Christ or this light created in the VERY beginning was 'the' PHYSICAL light that was created FOUR time periods, (days), LATER.

So you see, it COULD fit John's words. But it certainly CANNOT fit John's words or most others as defined by "TRINITY". You are trying to say that ALL things were created through Christ. But we KNOW that God's existence was not 'created' by Christ. We also know that to be in existence, something MUST BE 'someWHERE'. So where ever God EXISTED was NOT of a necessity 'created by Christ'.

No, the TRUTH is that the Bible offers enough in it's wording to SEE that when it is stated that ALL things were created BY Christ, that is IN REFERENCE to LIFE, not a literal ALL THINGS. The LIGHT of this world is that which LIFE is dependent upon. Not only PHYSICAL light, but SPIRITUAL LIGHT as well. And that 'spiritual light' may well be nothing other than literal TRUTH. The TRUTH that it took to perform the creation of LIFE. The TRUTH that is necessary to sustain LIFE.

But don't get me confused. I can CLEARLY see why it is SO difficult to contemplate such ANSWERS if one has already accepted 'trinity' FIRST. For 'trinity' would DESTROY such understanding instead of enhance it. 'Trinity' makes it IMPOSSIBLE to reach a DEEPER understanding for it's very NATURE: (doctrine), LIMITS understanding to that which FITS 'trinity'.

Like ANY law, once instituted it causes LIMITATION. From the point of it's institution, everything THEN must be contained WITHIN the law. But take the law away and myriad possibilities then come into existence.

There is NO RULE offered in the Bible pertaining to 'TRINITY'. The doctrine is PURELY 'man made'. True or not is irrelevant to the FACT that it IS 'man made doctrine' that DID NOT exist at the time of Christ or the apostles. NO WHERE in the Bible are we INSTRUCTED to form and follow 'TRINITY'. It was created BY and followed BY MEN. Period.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Genesis 1 does not refer to the creation of God the Son. Rather, several NT passages (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2) tell us that God the Son was the agent of creation.

No, the Son was AN agent of Creation. Let me ask this: What is the SIGNIFICANCE of the WORD: Son? You choose, Greek, English, Chinese, Polish............ I would offer that if you REFUSE to acknowledge the significance of the word SON, then your understanding is limited beyond the ability to offer ANYTHING of significance.

Are you referring to John 1:14 (And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. -- καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.)?

YES. Along with these:

John 1:14
And the Word was made 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.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 1:14

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 1:18

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 3:16

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 3:18

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts 13:33

1 Corinthians 4:15
For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 Corinthians 4:15

Philemon 1:10
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philemon 1:10

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews 1:5

Hebrews 5:5
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews 5:5

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews 11:17

1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 Peter 1:3

1 John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 John 4:9

1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 John 5:1

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

That verse does not contain the word "begotten." The Greek word, which occurs also in Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38, does not mean "begotten."

And I assume that YOU KNOW better than ANYONE else? Glad to meet you, "He who KNOWS MORE than anyone else". Feel free to set us ALL straight.

But I find it amusing that scholars, ALL who were 'trinitarians', all who were fluent in Greek, could ALL make this monumental BLUNDER. Yet YOU, all by your lonesome, were able to correctly discern how to translate what so many other SKILLED men were not.

But I will not discuss this further with you while you continue to hide behind an "orthodox Christian" icon.

Well then. I guess you TOLD ME, huh?

For your information: I hide behind NOTHING. I think it rather RUDE and IGNORANT that you would make such an assumption about someone you KNOW nothing about and then post it so boldly. But to clarify:

I do NOT worship a CROSS or symbols of ANY kind. I don't even have a moniker by my name. If you thought about it for about two seconds you would realize that the 'symbol' was PLACED there by the website. I place NO faith in ANY symbols. PERIOD. I selected 'Christian SEEKER'. If you KNOW better than that, then by all means, you are free to offer it as far as I'm concerned.

But you have certainly offered a bit of insight into YOUR form of Christianity. I wonder if that would have been the manner that Christ would have addressed those that He spoke to: "If you don't listen like I TELL you to, then WALK AWAY". For that SEEMS to be the nature of 'trinity' and how it was forced upon the congregation almost two thousand years ago. Accept it and believe it or DIE. You don't have to understand it, but you better SAY you believe it.

I am anything BUT 'orthodox' in many aspects of my faith. I do NOT believe that ANY 'man made church' is able to bring about my salvation. Nor do I believe that any set of LAWS designed by MEN can teach me ANYTHING of significance so far as The Spirit is concerned.

But if 'orthodox' is so important to you, WHY are you in the UNorthodox section of the Forum? Now THAT don't make NO sense. Guess they should have labeled it in GREEK?

But if it matters, I am a FIRM believer in God, the Father of Jesus Christ, His Son. And I am a firm believer that God's Son died for the sins of this world. If that's not ENOUGH for me to be considered a 'Christian', then CALL me what you will.

And let me offer YOU this: if your desire is to simply try and indicate that YOU know better than ANYONE else by trying to RE translate the Bible, I would RATHER you not comment on this thread any longer. I couldn't care LESS about 'GREEK'. I speak ENGLISH and I have a perfectly readable and understandable Bible that 47 SCHOLARS of Greek spent seven years translating through the INSPIRATION of God Himself. If you don't believe that, then you are not as orthodox as I am.

You came in and tried to turn this into a discussion of GREEK instead of focusing on the question from the start. This isn't a discussion based on you having a book of Greek translation. I'm proud of you having one but in my opinion, so far as the Bible is concerned, you wasted your money.

It was a SIMPLE question with a SIMPLE answer. If you would like to argue GREEK, why don't YOU start a thread about GREEK. This one is about E N G L I S H. Sorry, it's the ONLY language that I speak. If you're confused, I can restate the question if you'd like. Otherwise......................

Blessings,

MEC

 

[RevelationTestament]

I can CLEARLY see why it is SO difficult to contemplate such ANSWERS if one has already accepted 'trinity' FIRST. For 'trinity' would DESTROY such understanding instead of enhance it. 'Trinity' makes it IMPOSSIBLE to reach a DEEPER understanding for it's very NATURE: (doctrine), LIMITS understanding to that which FITS 'trinity'.

While I do not share your theological views or your interpretation of the light as Christ (Perhaps the light of Christ?), I will note for those who have been trying to follow this thread that there have been theological writers on this subject from the time of the earliest church. Some like you posited that the light was Christ when God said let there be light. I believe Tertullian mused on the subject.
But this has little to do with the doctrines of the trinity imho, because I don't see Christ's begottenness in this light. However, I do agree that the doctrine of the trinity stops further understanding - for anyone who disagrees with it is labeled "anathema" and kicked out. Hence the common call that if you don't believe in the Nicene Creed, you are not Christian, which to me is just water under the bridge as I cross over in the way to the holiest of all.

 

[Ripheus27]

My guesswork was based on assuming that the light of creation is Jesus, which is also just guesswork. That is, from one person's guess about what the light at the creation is, I made another guess. It's all arbitrary at this point.

Also, people don't believe in the Trinity just so they have an excuse to worship Jesus. I also use it as an excuse to worship the Holy Spirit as a different person compared to the Father and the Son. So do many others. In fact, I think it might be easier to show the divinity of the Spirit over the Father, even, but that is a different matter (I guess).