Do Christians desire to replace God with Jesus?

[gadar perets]

My understanding of John 17:3. Basically that eternal life is gained by "knowing" the true God AND Jesus Christ, whom God "sent." It's just not clear exactly what the nature of the concepts of "knowing" or "sent" mean here all by themselves. So far, I'm not seeing anything here that either affirms or denies the Trinity. Am I missing something?

So, I'm following along with your explanation as you present it. Please continue.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Yeshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.
​

Understanding what "know" and "sent" mean in this verse is important, but it is not what we are discussing. The important point is that Yeshua declared a being other than himself as the "only true God". Since the trinity doctrine says the Father is not the Son, then when the Son calls his Father the only true God, that makes the Father that God and excludes the Son from being the that God. If the Son is also the only true God, then we have two Gods, the Father and the Son. No amount of verbal trinitarian gymnastics can change that.

Therefore, I build my understanding of who Yeshua is or isn't based on the firm foundation taught in John 17:3. Yeshua was declaring true monotheism (the worship of his Father). The fact that the Son was sent shows the superiority of the Father over the Son as Yeshua declared in John 13:16;

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
​

That statement is also in keeping with John 10:29, John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3;

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;​

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.​

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is God [Yeshua's Father].​

The trinity teaches equality between the Father and the Son, but the above verses teach otherwise.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Yeshua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.
​

Understanding what "know" and "sent" mean in this verse is important, but it is not what we are discussing. The important point is that Yeshua declared a being other than himself as the "only true God". Since the trinity doctrine says the Father is not the Son, then when the Son calls his Father the only true God, that makes the Father that God and excludes the Son from being the that God. If the Son is also the only true God, then we have two Gods, the Father and the Son. No amount of verbal trinitarian gymnastics can change that.

Therefore, I build my understanding of who Yeshua is or isn't based on the firm foundation taught in John 17:3. Yeshua was declaring true monotheism (the worship of his Father). The fact that the Son was sent shows the superiority of the Father over the Son as Yeshua declared in John 13:16;

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
​

That statement is also in keeping with John 10:29, John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3;

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;​

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.​

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is God [Yeshua's Father].​

The trinity teaches equality between the Father and the Son, but the above verses teach otherwise.

Actually, I believe that the Son is God, BUT subordinate to the Father.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Understanding what "know" and "sent" mean in this verse is important, but it is not what we are discussing. The important point is that Yeshua declared a being other than himself as the "only true God". Since the trinity doctrine says the Father is not the Son, then when the Son calls his Father the only true God, that makes the Father that God and excludes the Son from being the that God. If the Son is also the only true God, then we have two Gods, the Father and the Son. No amount of verbal trinitarian gymnastics can change that.

Well then, if we can conclude this ALL ON JUST ONE TINY VERSE, I guess we're done here. And since you're the authority, I guess that settles that. No need for us to go further then?

 

[gadar perets]

Well then, if we can conclude this ALL ON JUST ONE TINY VERSE, I guess we're done here. And since you're the authority, I guess that settles that. No need for us to go further then?

That's a cop out. I simply gave you what I see in John 17:3. If you disagree, then state your case. Don't make it seem like I am exalting myself as an authority on the subject in order to deflect your own inability to reply Scripturally and then use that as an excuse to end the discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a cop out. I simply gave you what I see in John 17:3. If you disagree, then state your case. Don't make it seem like I am exalting myself as an authority on the subject in order to deflect your own inability to reply Scripturally and then use that as an excuse to end the discussion.

Would it be possible for us to converse with each other without descending into condescending remarks?

 

[gadar perets]

Would it be possible for us to converse with each other without descending into condescending remarks?

That was my desire from the beginning, but then you began by telling me I'm wrong and that my non-trinitarian position is false. You started to focus on me and my supposed superiority over you. You misquote me and raise questions about whether or not the Holy Spirit is leading me. Here we are ten posts of yours later and you have yet to refute my understanding of John 17:3 or present your own. Forgive me for my condescending remark. It was birthed out of frustration.

I have shown you that "one tiny verse" can be packed with information refuting the trinity. I await a discussion of the Scriptures alone without any reference to me. Correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding. If you cannot, then present a different verse for discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That was my desire from the beginning, but then you began by telling me I'm wrong and that my non-trinitarian position is false. You started to focus on me and my supposed superiority over you. You misquote me and raise questions about whether or not the Holy Spirit is leading me. Here we are ten posts of yours later and you have yet to refute my understanding of John 17:3 or present your own. Forgive me for my condescending remark. It was birthed out of frustration.

That is correct. As a traditional, Trinitarian Christian, I have to flat out say, "you're wrong." Don't take it as a judgment of your character or moral quality as a person. I'm confident you're a good guy. But you're going to have to remember the social and spiritual context in which you are writing here. You're on a Trinitarian, Christian Forum, AND you're in the Christian Apologetics section, one that is not easy to get into. So yeah, I started by flat out saying, "You're wrong!" since you're here.

Now, on a practical scale, just between us, I'm fairly forbearing of those who come here and espouse a different angle on the Gospel of Christ, in fact I consider myself Historically Trans-Denominational, and I accept as Christian brethren all those who are Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or of various Protestants denominations. So, while I'd like to be able to extend my hand to you in fellowship if Jesus is your Lord and Savior, unfortunately if you're not Trinitarian, or if you don't at least see Jesus as divine in nature, then we have some extensive factors to discuss. I'd prefer for us to have a discussion over a debate....but if someone pushes me to debate, then I will.

I have shown you that "one tiny verse" can be packed with information refuting the trinity. I await a discussion of the Scriptures alone without any reference to me. Correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding. If you cannot, then present a different verse for discussion.

Ok. Don't take this as a criticism, but I think that just popping open to John 17:3, and citing it, is an arbitrary and piecemeal act of interpreting, especially for something as central and controversial as the doctrine of the Trinity.

Instead, I think we should take a more wholistic approach as far as understanding contexts are concerned. I want to see what the entirety of thought is on a subject in an entire work (such as is found in the whole Gospel of John) before assuming that we know what a single verse's meaning is, or before we go over to other authors or other books in the Bible and start linking up what we think a verse means with other verses in Bible. So, if we are going to choose the Gospel of John as a starting point, I think we need to scrutinize and survey the 'entire' book from beginning to end to see how John's patterns of thought express and feed his overall meaning. So, we should start with John 1:1 and go from there, seeing how all of John's meaning gathers throughout the book.

That is how I do my hermeneutical study, gadar.

On top of this, while we can point out that "literal interpretation" includes those four basic ways of reading Scripture which you pointed out previously, we might also keep in mind that there are four theoretical approaches to 'reading' the Bible--even if we think we are doing it "literally"--and according to Walter C. Kaiser and Moises Silva (1994), these are:

1) The Proof-Text Model
2) The Historical-Critical Method
3) The Reader-Response Method
4) The Syntactical-Theological Method

So, there are some additional things to consider in the process of doing hermeneutics. Sometimes, occasionally, it is ok to cite a singular verse or a set of verses for something more general or less central to our specific beliefs in God, but for those most important and central themes, we need to be very careful, and not just claim that we're being "led by the Spirit," since anyone can open their mouth and claim that.

Reference
Kaiser, Walter C, & Silva, Moises. (1994). An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[gadar perets]

Now, on a practical scale, just between us, I'm fairly forbearing of those who come here and espouse a different angle on the Gospel of Christ, ...

The Gospel of Christ in a nutshell is that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. It is not, "He gave Himself, ..."

Ok. Don't take this as a criticism, but I think that just popping open to John 17:3, and citing it, is an arbitrary and piecemeal act of interpreting, especially for something as central and controversial as the doctrine of the Trinity.

Choosing John 17:3 was pretty much forced by your post #94 where you said Jesus was the second person of the Trinity thereby making him the "only true God". John 17:3 is very problematic for trinitarians because it clearly contradicts it. It was a well chosen place to begin.

Instead, I think we should take a more wholistic approach as far as understanding contexts are concerned. I want to see what the entirety of thought is on a subject in an entire work (such as is found in the whole Gospel of John) before assuming that we know what a single verse's meaning is, or before we go over to other authors or other books in the Bible and start linking up what we think a verse means with other verses in Bible. So, if we are going to choose the Gospel of John as a starting point, I think we need to scrutinize and survey the 'entire' book from beginning to end to see how John's patterns of thought express and feed his overall meaning. So, we should start with John 1:1 and go from there, seeing how all of John's meaning gathers throughout the book.

That is how I do my hermeneutical study, gadar.

I have no problem starting in John 1:1, however, since trinitarians can't even agree on its meaning or how to translate it, we may never make it to the next verse.

 

[gadar perets]

Before we can begin to understand John 1:1, we need to define the term "logos". I choose to derive my definition from Scripture as the spoken words, thoughts and reason of the only true Elohim (Father YHWH). It seems to me that trinitarians derive their definition of "logos" from a Jewish philosopher/mystic named Philo. By embracing his view of the logos, the KJV translators translated the Greek with the thought in mind that the logos was the preexistent Son (eisegesis), it skewed the translation and caused their readers to believe the same (that the logos was a living being that later became a man). Most ensuing versions followed the KJV mistakes. Several major translations that preceded the KJV were far more careful when translating John 1:1-5. Among those translations are Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible. Tyndale's translation of John 1:1-5 is as follows;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men 5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
​

The other versions I listed translated the passage similarly. They did not read the Son into the text as the KJV and most modern versions do. Prior to the Son's conception, the logos was a thing (YHWH's spoken words, thoughts, reason). It existed in the mind of the Father (YHWH) and was made into a flesh and blood man when YHWH's plan was carried out (John 1:14).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The natural conclusion is that Jesus will one day replace the Father in heaven.

Probably got addressed already (I only read the OP),
but you do realize now that "natural conclusion" like that is not Biblically accurate?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm sorry, but none of it makes sense to me when it's taken literally the way Christians have done.

Oh, may be no need at all to be sorry - just don't try to take things nor make sense of the way things are taken by anyone else. Find out the truth for yourself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Gospel of Christ in a nutshell is that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. It is not, "He gave Himself, ..."

I'd like to remind you that this is but your interpretation. Just stating it this way doesn't make it so. What we have to look at are the contexts within and between ALL of the statements made by each New Testament writer. So, if John 3:16 is to be interpreted as you see it, then we should find some contextual coherence here with the rest of the inherent meanings that John may have intended in his overall message.

Choosing John 17:3 was pretty much forced by your post #94 where you said Jesus was the second person of the Trinity thereby making him the "only true God". John 17:3 is very problematic for trinitarians because it clearly contradicts it. It was a well chosen place to begin.

I don't think it was forced at all; maybe if you're an Arian it may seem that way, but in just looking at John 17:3 in English, as I said previously, I see no indication that this singular verse either affirms or denies the deity of Christ. It simply states that God "sent" Jesus. From where and how Jesus was "sent," we can't know just by simply reading this verse alone. In fact, if we read the entire chapter 17 as a whole, I think that we might see some implications that there's more to the overall understanding of Christ's nature that also emerges out of the rest of what John writes throughout his gospel book.

I have no problem starting in John 1:1, however, since trinitarians can't even agree on its meaning or how to translate it, we may never make it to the next verse.

...and then again, we just "may" make it to the next verse, and the one after that, and the one after that, anyway.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I have no problem starting in John 1:1, however, since trinitarians can't even agree on its meaning or how to translate it, we may never make it to the next verse.

hahaha, not on this forum perhaps...... maybe some other Jewish forum though ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Before we can begin to understand John 1:1, we need to define the term "logos". I choose to derive my definition from Scripture as the spoken words, thoughts and reason of the only true Elohim (Father YHWH).

Ok. You say you have "chosen" to derive your definition; how how your actually derived it? I have to ask because you don't actually say 'how' you have done so. You simply state that you have done so. As a part of your hermeneutical process, which New Testament Greek dictionaries, lexicons, or commentaries did you consult to derive your definition and application of the term?

It seems to me that trinitarians derive their definition of "logos" from a Jewish philosopher/mystic named Philo.

Ok. If you're going to state this, you need to cite the sources from which you've drawn this conclusion. Furthermore, I don't think that in defining the logos it was as simple for Trinitarians as you are implying here. Again, you need to academically back up your statements here.

By embracing his view of the logos, the KJV translators translated the Greek with the thought in mind that the logos was the preexistent Son (eisegesis), it skewed the translation and caused their readers to believe the same (that the logos was a living being that later became a man).

Again, you need to show "your work" in the process of your interpreting here. Moreover, there is more than one family of New Testament Greek texts, so what the translators did in 1611 is a moot point since the doctrine of the Trinity didn't start with them.

Most ensuing versions followed the KJV mistakes. Several major translations that preceded the KJV were far more careful when translating John 1:1-5. Among those translations are Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible. Tyndale's translation of John 1:1-5 is as follows;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men 5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
​

The other versions I listed translated the passage similarly. They did not read the Son into the text as the KJV and most modern versions do. Prior to the Son's conception, the logos was a thing (YHWH's spoken words, thoughts, reason). It existed in the mind of the Father (YHWH) and was made into a flesh and blood man when YHWH's plan was carried out (John 1:14).

Again, to criticize another position is not the same as proving your own. How do you think Trinitarians will respond to your criticism here?

So far, I'm not seeing that you're re-translating the original Greek texts at all, but simply putting your own spin (eisegesis) on the flow of interpretation (mainly in response to the English), and then pointing the finger at Trinitarians and saying, "Aha! You guys can't read; you're doing eisegesis!"

[P.S. please note that my disagreement with you on this matter doesn't also mean that I think you're automatically disqualified from eternal life in Christ. It just means we disagree ... on a rather important matter. I hope you extend the same courtesy to me. ]

 

[gadar perets]

I'd like to remind you that this is but your interpretation. Just stating it this way doesn't make it so. What we have to look at are the contexts within and between ALL of the statements made by each New Testament writer. So, if John 3:16 is to be interpreted as you see it, then we should find some contextual coherence here with the rest of the inherent meanings that John may have intended in his overall message.

If you disagree with my interpretation of the Gospel, then state yours and refute mine. If you say the Father sent Himself, then you are not a trinitarian since trinitarians do not believe the Father is the Son. Also, keep in mind that the only part of John 3:16 that is relevant to our conversation is "He gave His only begotten Son."

I don't think it was forced at all; maybe if you're an Arian it may seem that way, but in just looking at John 17:3 in English, as I said previously, I see no indication that this singular verse either affirms or denies the deity of Christ. It simply states that God "sent" Jesus. From where and how Jesus was "sent," we can't know just by simply reading this verse alone. In fact, if we read the entire chapter 17 as a whole, I think that we might see some implications that there's more to the overall understanding of Christ's nature that also emerges out of the rest of what John writes throughout his gospel book.

I am not an Arian. If you are leaving an opening in John 17:3 for the deity of Christ, then you will have two Gods (the only true one and the God He sent).

 

[gadar perets]

Ok. You say you have "chosen" to derive your definition; how how your actually derived it? I have to ask because you don't actually say 'how' you have done so. You simply state that you have done so. As a part of your hermeneutical process, which New Testament Greek dictionaries, lexicons, or commentaries did you consult to derive your definition and application of the term?

The word "logos" was used throughout the Septuagint long before New Testament Greek resources were written. It was a translation for the Hebrew "dabar". I know of no verses in the Septuagint where logos means a divine person or a preexistent Son. Nor does "dabar" carry those definitions.
The word logos was used over 300 times in the NT without meaning "Jesus Christ". Of the seven times it was capitalized as "Word" in the NT, only about 3-4 times was it a reference to the Son. The three times it was used in John 1:1 do not state it refers to the Son without reading him into the text.

Ok. If you're going to state this, you need to cite the sources from which you've drawn this conclusion. Furthermore, I don't think that in defining the logos it was as simple for Trinitarians as you are implying here. Again, you need to academically back up your statements here.

It was not a statement of fact. I wrote, "It seems to me ...". If my opinion is wrong, so be it. It doesn't matter. The Christian interpretation of logos is a later addition. Prior to the NT, the logos was not a divine person or a preexistent Son. If trinitarian Christians want to teach that the logos of John 1:1 was the preexistent Son, then it is on them to prove it. The text does not say the logos was the Son unless you read him into it. It is not until the logos was made flesh that it became the Son (vs. 14).

So far, I'm not seeing that you're re-translating the original Greek texts at all, but simply putting your own spin (eisegesis) on the flow of interpretation (mainly in response to the English), and then pointing the finger at Trinitarians and saying, "Aha! You guys can't read; you're doing eisegesis!"

How can it be my own spin if important translations prior to the KJV translate it that way? Let's face it bro, you are reading the Son into the text of John 1:1-5. Tyndale, for example, did not.

[P.S. please note that my disagreement with you on this matter doesn't also mean that I think you're automatically disqualified from eternal life in Christ. It just means we disagree ... on a rather important matter. I hope you extend the same courtesy to me. ]

Thanks. You are probably in the minority. I do extend the same courtesy to you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you disagree with my interpretation of the Gospel, then state yours and refute mine. If you say the Father sent Himself, then you are not a trinitarian since trinitarians do not believe the Father is the Son. Also, keep in mind that the only part of John 3:16 that is relevant to our conversation is "He gave His only begotten Son."

I definitely don't believe the Father literally sent Himself 'as' Jesus, but in my estimation, I don't think this should be misconstrued to also say that the Father wasn't also perfectly united with Jesus through His Holy Spirit.

You are at least partially correct on one account, gadar. I'm not a typical trinitarian. I see the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as a more organic one, even though on our part, and by our human categories, we will see God in Three persons. However, far be it from me to insinuate that when I say God is in Three persons that this statement should be understood to mean anything even remotely similar to saying, "I saw three guys standing on the street corner, all waiting for the crosswalk light to change..." Nope, it's more organic than that, and I mean this on a philosophical level, but one that is, as far as I can tell, compatible with the Nicene Creed. In fact, I'd say that the Trinity, if we use a very, very, very rough analogy akin to the human body, is kind of like this: Jesus is the the Broca area of God's mind, the Father being the Mind as a whole, and the Spirit being the Heart of God and the Rest of the body that makes things happen. Again, this is just an analogy, a rough one and is not by any means meant to be taken as some kind of doctrine; we have the Nicene Creed as the doctrine that expresses the mystery of God to and through the Church, which is the body of Christ, His Temple on earth. ...the final point is that none of us really knows what God is in His Fullness or exactly how His being "works"; nobody knows this, not me, not you, not the Pope, not the Patriarchs, not Billy Graham, not the Jews, and not the Dalai Lama.

I am not an Arian. If you are leaving an opening in John 17:3 for the deity of Christ, then you will have two Gods (the only true one and the God He sent).

No, not if God is conceptually organic; He can be Three Persons in One, and again with yet another rough analogy, the Three could interact as different wavelengths of an eternal color spectrum. Red is not Yellow, Yellow is not Blue, and Blue is not Red--but they are all expressions of the same spectrum as a whole, with any other colors being derivative of these three, so to speak.

 

[gadar perets]

I definitely don't believe the Father literally sent Himself 'as' Jesus, but in my estimation, I don't think this should be misconstrued to also say that the Father wasn't also perfectly united with Jesus through His Holy Spirit.

I agree they were united, but it wasn't an eternal unity. I believe the Son became united to the Father when he was begotten as a man. Yet, that unity does not make Yeshua God any more than the unity of believers with God makes us God.

You are at least partially correct on one account, gadar. I'm not a typical trinitarian. I see the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as a more organic one, even though on our part, and by our human categories, we will see God in Three persons. However, far be it from me to insinuate that when I say God is in Three persons that this statement should be understood to mean anything even remotely similar to saying, "I saw three guys standing on the street corner, all waiting for the crosswalk light to change..." Nope, it's more organic than that, and I mean this on a philosophical level, but one that is, as far as I can tell, compatible with the Nicene Creed. In fact, I'd say that the Trinity, if we use a very, very, very rough analogy akin to the human body, is kind of like this: Jesus is the the Broca area of God's mind, the Father being the Mind as a whole, and the Spirit being the Heart of God and the Rest of the body that makes things happen. Again, this is just an analogy, a rough one and is not by any means meant to be taken as some kind of doctrine; we have the Nicene Creed as the doctrine that expresses the mystery of God to and through the Church, which is the body of Christ, His Temple on earth.

I am not interested in philosophy and do not understand what an organic relationship is/means. You seem to be suggesting a kind of Oneness doctrine.

As for the creed expressing the mystery of God, it failed since Christians still say the trinity is a mystery when they can't explain it. They don't say, "Just read the Nicene Creed. It expresses the mystery of God perfectly."

No, not if God is conceptually organic; He can be Three Persons in One, and again with yet another rough analogy, the Three could interact as different wavelengths of an eternal color spectrum. Red is not Yellow, Yellow is not Blue, and Blue is not Red--but they are all expressions of the same spectrum as a whole, with any other colors being derivative of these three, so to speak.

Your analogy assumes the Holy Spirit is a third person. I see the Holy Spirit as the power/influence of the Father. I prefer the following analogy;

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree they were united, but it wasn't an eternal unity. I believe the Son became united to the Father when he was begotten as a man. Yet, that unity does not make Yeshua God any more than the unity of believers with God makes us God.

So, in your view, was the Son preexisent in any shape, form, fashion, persona, or person before He was incarnated? Personally (and like a lot of Christians--I mean a LOT of Christians) I see Jesus as the Angel of God in Jewish terms, as well as the Wisdom of God, which in Greek terms would have been expressed as the Logos of God. And we know from the Old Testament that the motifs describing the existence of the Angel of God or the Wisdom of God were existing 'before' Jesus was formed in the the womb of Mary by the power of God, the Holy Spirit. (Notice, too, I say that the Holy Spirit IS God as well, not that the Spirit is a 'thing' or just a power.)

I am not interested in philosophy and do not understand what an organic relationship is/means. You seem to be suggesting a kind of Oneness doctrine.

...well, buckaroo, you may think you don't care about philosophy, but if you're doing theology, then you're really doing a form of analysis involving Christian philosophy, with philosophy simply involving the act of evaluating the qualities of our existence which includes the nature of God, if there is one.

And no, I'm not suggesting a kind of Oneness doctrine.

s for the creed expressing the mystery of God, it failed since Christians still say the trinity is a mystery when they can't explain it. They don't say, "Just read the Nicene Creed. It expresses the mystery of God perfectly."

Obviously the Nicene Creed doesn't cover everything. NO humanly contrived definition can. Although, you seem to think YOU can. Am I wrong?

Your analogy assumes the Holy Spirit is a third person. I see the Holy Spirit as the power/influence of the Father. I prefer the following analogy;

View attachment 219642

Well, then you'd be wrong. Again. The Holy Spirit is God; and He can be grieved by our sins, He can convict us of our sins, He can intercede on our behalf when we pray, He can help us. Moreover, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit, the Helper, as a "He," not an "it." John 16:13.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The word "logos" was used throughout the Septuagint long before New Testament Greek resources were written. It was a translation for the Hebrew "dabar". I know of no verses in the Septuagint where logos means a divine person or a preexistent Son. Nor does "dabar" carry those definitions.

I think that's part of your problem here; you're placing way, way too much emphasis on some one particular meaning and usage of λόγος as it can be drawn from the Greek and not enough on thematic, Jewish concepts already embedded and expressed in the Hebrew Old Testament, apart from the Greek Septuagint or any other Greek sources. We have to take cultural and already existing theologies into account in addition to whatever we think extant Greek sources might imply to us.

The word logos was used over 300 times in the NT without meaning "Jesus Christ". Of the seven times it was capitalized as "Word" in the NT, only about 3-4 times was it a reference to the Son. The three times it was used in John 1:1 do not state it refers to the Son without reading him into the text.

...I hate to break it to you, but in exegesis, we study the meaning of words as they exist in interlocking context with the sentences, paragraphs, and overall works in which they are used and expressed, not in some singular "cut out" fashion that reduces them to some kind of immediate face value. Surely you know this, right? You study hermeneutics, right? You don't just open the Bible and read it and assume it means just whatever you think it means (even after a prayer), right?

It was not a statement of fact. I wrote, "It seems to me ...". If my opinion is wrong, so be it. It doesn't matter. The Christian interpretation of logos is a later addition. Prior to the NT, the logos was not a divine person or a preexistent Son. If trinitarian Christians want to teach that the logos of John 1:1 was the preexistent Son, then it is on them to prove it. The text does not say the logos was the Son unless you read him into it. It is not until the logos was made flesh that it became the Son (vs. 14).

No, no, no. You don't get to play both sides of the court by basically saying it's ok for you to express your opinion without recourse to scholarly support, and then imply that it's ALL up to me to demonstrate and explain my Trinitarian beliefs, but I see that his is what you are doing. The Burden of Proof in this case is on either side who makes an assertion.

And yes, I will get to a point in referencing scholarly material. We're not there yet because you don't seem to have any clear ground rules for interpretation....other than that, "the Holy Spirit tells us so."

How can it be my own spin if important translations prior to the KJV translate it that way? Let's face it bro, you are reading the Son into the text of John 1:1-5. Tyndale, for example, did not.

Who cares about the English translations. I don't. You seem to think I'm not alluding to anything but English.

Thanks. You are probably in the minority. I do extend the same courtesy to you.

You're welcome.