Explain Trinity

[Netpreacher]

DEU 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD out God is one LORD

ISA 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

REV 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

JOHN 1:1,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...

ACTS 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

1 JOHN 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The LORD is God. The LORD is the first and the last. Jesus, who is the one who died and came back to life, is also the first and the last. Jesus is the Word, and Jesus is God. The Holy Ghost is God. These three are one.

God the Father is outside of space and time. God invaded space and time as a man, who is His Son, Jesus Christ. God dwelt in Jesus Christ through His Spirit, the Holy Ghost. Jesus was broken by the cross of Calvary, allowing those who abide in Him by faith can receive His Spirit, the Holy Ghost, as well.

This is the Triune God Christians worship. What a wonderful Lord we serve!

Attempting to make every man perfect in Jesus Christ,
Danny

 

[drmmjr]

KennySe,

I have a question concerning a portion of the Athanasian Creed. In a portion of it is says:

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.

But in Galatians 4:4-5, it says:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Now, if the Son (Jesus) is not supposed to be made, then this scripture is wrong.

Also, when someone is begotten, they are born, or brought forth into the world. They have been created from the father and mother. When something is created, its is:
1. Caused to exist, bring into being.
2. To produce.

In other words, before it was created, it didn't exist.

Likewise, the same is true when something is made. When you make something, you cause it to exist or happen. You bring it into existence.

So that phrase of "not made, nor created, but begotten", sort of contradicts itself.

 

[KennySe]

KennySe,

I have a question concerning a portion of the Athanasian Creed. In a portion of it is says:

"The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten."

But in Galatians 4:4-5, it says:

"4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

Now, if the Son (Jesus) is not supposed to be made, then this scripture is wrong.

Hello, drmmjr.
I will happily explain this.

When you read John, Chapter 1, you will see that The Word [Jesus] existed with God and was God. And that The Word became flesh.

The scripture above (Galatians 4:4-5) is correct.
It speaks of Jesus' HUMANITY, not His Divinity.
When the Father sent forth His Son, Jesus' HUMANITY was made of a woman. Jesus was a REAL human; he wasn't a hologram of a man, nor was he an android-approximation of a man.
He was a man, 100%. Born of a woman.

Yet, He remained fully The Word.

This is the dual natures of Jesus. Fully God from eternity, who became fully man at his Conception in the womb of Mary by the power of the Almighty.

Not that these are two Jesuses: one Divine and one human, but the One Jesus.
He is Eternally The Son who became a man.

For *if* he had a beginning, then he would not be GOD. He would be a half-god, a godling, like the mythical Hercules, who had the mythical god Zeus for a father and had an Earth mortal mother. In the fable, there was no Hercules until his birth.

In truth, read John, Chapter 1.

This is the Mystery of the Incarnation. That Jesus while fully Eternally God, became fully a man. He did not "stop being" the Eternal Son when he became mortal. (He is Eternal, so by definition he cannot stop.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm
Explains in detail "The Incarnation".

There was a belief that Jesus was not really God, but that he was given God-like powers from God. The visible historical Christian CHurch refuted this false belief, and therefore, such Christian creeds as the one I already posted, and the Nicene Creed were written. Not that the creeds were presenting NEW beliefs, but that they were stating most clearly the beliefs of the historical Christian Church which was founded by Jesus Christ, and was preached by His Apostles.

Just as the Book of John is quite clear in sharing Jesus' words that he does not bring the light, but "I am the light of the world", "I am the way, the truth and the life."
There is no way TO the light except BY the light, which IS Jesus.

And throughout the ages, false beliefs pop up: Jesus was one heck of a nice guy, but he wasn't God.
Jesus was God, but he wasn't really a man.

The historical, visible Christian Church continues to defend the truth that Jesus is 100% God and was made 100% man. ANd that the ONE Jesus cannot be divided into two Jesuses.
When Jesus rose from the dead, he did so IN HIS BODY. True, his body was glorified, but he said to his apostles that he was himself and they could check the holes in his hands. And when He ascended into heaven, HE ascended BODILY.

Also, when someone is begotten, they are born, or brought forth into the world. They have been created from the father and mother. When something is created, its is:
1. Caused to exist, bring into being.
2. To produce.

In other words, before it was created, it didn't exist.

Likewise, the same is true when something is made. When you make something, you cause it to exist or happen. You bring it into existence.

So that phrase of "not made, nor created, but begotten", sort of contradicts itself.

The dictionary definition of begotten is on human/mortal terms.

How can the Eternal God "begin" an Eternal Offspring? How can an Eternal Son be "made"?

The word "begotten" is used instead of "made" or "created", because Jesus is the Eternal Son.

Kindly read this short definition:
http://www.reference-guides.com/isbe/O/ONLY_BEGOTTEN/

And this short essay "ETERNAL SON OF GOD IS ALSO BORN OF MARY" by Pope John Paul II (July 31, 1996)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm28.htm
(subtitled: "The virginal conception of Jesus Christ shows us that he is truly the Son of God eternally begotten of the Father yet born, in time, of the Virgin Mary")

****

Here is a short article that says it better than I have.

"When did Jesus become the Son of God?"
http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/sonship.html

 

[KennySe]

My post (#12) on the following thread explains the Trinity. http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1252074#post1252074

 

[MattMMMan17]

The birth of Jesus through the Virgin Mary is the temporal birth of Christ, as KennySe has explained quite well. The divinity of Christ was and is forever, but his birth into humanity was necessary so that He could suffer on our behalf for atonement of our sins.

 

[xsimmsx]

No. Absolutely not.

Jesus is The Word. The Word is God and the Word is with God.

The Word became flesh.

The Father did not become flesh.

Jesus prayed to the Father who is in heaven.
The Father spoke from on high when Jesus was baptized by John.
Jesus prayed to the Father when jesus was in the garden before His Passion.

Emmanuel: God with us
(NOT> Father with us)

Did I say that the Word didn't become flesh? No I didn't I said the Father was in the flesh. Their is a huge difference. Jesus said that the Father was in him. He also told his disciples that they had seen the Father. Now was that a lie? No of course not. They saw the father when they looked at Jesus.

 

[MattMMMan17]

Did I say that the Word didn't become flesh? No I didn't I said the Father was in the flesh. Their is a huge difference. Jesus said that the Father was in him. He also told his disciples that they had seen the Father. Now was that a lie? No of course not. They saw the father when they looked at Jesus.

He was referring to his divinity, not that he was the Father made flesh. Otherwise it makes him out to be a liar when he claims to be the son of God the Father. Two persons must exist for this Father/Son relationship to occur.

 

[joyinchrist]

Did I say that the Word didn't become flesh? No I didn't I said the Father was in the flesh. Their is a huge difference. Jesus said that the Father was in him. He also told his disciples that they had seen the Father. Now was that a lie? No of course not. They saw the father when they looked at Jesus.

Good point!

 

[Der Alte]

KennySe,

I have a question concerning a portion of the Athanasian Creed. In a portion of it is says:

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.

But in Galatians 4:4-5, it says:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Now, if the Son (Jesus) is not supposed to be made, then this scripture is wrong.

Also, when someone is begotten, they are born, or brought forth into the world. They have been created from the father and mother. When something is created, its is:

1. Caused to exist, bring into being.
2. To produce.

In other words, before it was created, it didn't exist.

Likewise, the same is true when something is made. When you make something, you cause it to exist or happen. You bring it into existence.

So that phrase of "not made, nor created, but begotten", sort of contradicts itself.

Let me add my 2¢ to what has been posted in response. Note that the word translated “made” in KJV is translated “born” in modern versions. This translates the Greek word “ginomai, to cause to be.” Thus, “In the fullness of time God caused His Son to be of a woman, caused Him to be under the law..” So there is no contradiction. And we cannot overlook John 1:14, “and the word became flesh..” The Greek word translated “became,” is the same word “ginomai,” in the middle deponent voice, which means that the subject, i.e. the “Logos,” is the performer or doer of the action. In case you might have missed the significance of this, the “Logos” was capable of acting upon itself and becoming, before the incarnation.

NIV Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

NASB Gal 4:4 But when (3) the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, (4) born of a woman, born (5) under the Law,

RSVA Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

G1096 ginomai ginomai ghin'-om-ahee

A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.​

 

[xsimmsx]

He was referring to his divinity, not that he was the Father made flesh. Otherwise it makes him out to be a liar when he claims to be the son of God the Father. Two persons must exist for this Father/Son relationship to occur.

His divinity is the Father or it isn't divine for there is no divine one but the father. He is the Father in the flesh. He said his father was in him. It does not require two persons to have a relationship. The bible says that God keeps the counsel of his own will. He speaks to himself.

Ephesians 1:11:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

[drmmjr]

Let me add my 2¢ to what has been posted in response. Note that the word translated “made” in KJV is translated “born” in modern versions. This translates the Greek word “ginomai, to cause to be.” Thus, “In the fullness of time God caused His Son to be of a woman, caused Him to be under the law..” So there is no contradiction. And we cannot overlook John 1:14, “and the word became flesh..” The Greek word translated “became,” is the same word “ginomai,” in the middle deponent voice, which means that the subject, i.e. the “Logos,” is the performer or doer of the action. In case you might have missed the significance of this, the “Logos” was capable of acting upon itself and becoming, before the incarnation.

NIV Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

NASB Gal 4:4 But when (3) the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, (4) born of a woman, born (5) under the Law,

RSVA Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

G1096 ginomai ginomai ghin'-om-ahee

A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
​

You say that there isn't a contradition. Yes, as you point out, God caused his son "to be" of a woman. And notice that in the list of meanings for ginomai, we have: to become (come into being), be fullfilled, be made, etc.

Now from what I read,that sure does look like a contradiction of:

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.

And, yes, the Logos is the doer of the action. God spoke the word (Logos), and it happened.

 

[ah_muse]

would someone be so kind as to explain to me the trinity using only biblical terminology? Oh gee, trinity isn't a biblical word. This is going to be hard.

The Bible says that "God is love." (John 4:8). Love implies relationship. The mystery is that long before any human being came into the picture God was already love. God had already existed as a community of love. The Father loved the Son, the Son loved the Father, and the love between the Father and the Son was embodied in the Spirit. As St. Augustine, of the fourth century, put it "God is (at once) Lover, Beloved, and Love itself." God is the One that loves, the One that is loved, and the love itself."

The Father praises the Son. The Son worships the Father. As Hebrews 2:12 has the Son say, "In the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." The Father draws near to us to draw us near to Himself so we can praise the Son the way He does. The Son draws near to us to draw us near to Himself so we can worship the Father the way He does. And the Spirit? The Spirit comes upon us to fill us with His passion to see the Father and Son glorified. The Spirit gives us entry into the inter-Trinitarian delight.

"We want you to have fellowship with us", says John. "And," says John, "our fellowship is with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ." We do not have direct relationship with each other. Our relationship is always with each other in and with the Trinity. I am to love you by joining the Trinity loving you. You are to love me by joining the Trinity loving me.

Which, by the way, is why death does not end our relationship. We are now within the circle of God’s self-knowing. Death does not take us out of the circle. Death changes the way we share...but not the fact that we are still there in Him and with Him. That is what we mean by "the communion of the saints." Communion within the Trinitarian communion...a communion which death cannot destroy.

As Robert Murger used to say, "the closer you get to the heart of God, the closer you get to what is on God’s heart." And on God’s heart is the world. Your neighbors, and my neighbors. Empty. Rebellious. Broken. People for whom the Son died. People over whom the Spirit broods. How can we help but love them when we know and feel the love of the Trinity for them? Not just loving them with our love...temporarily...up and down. But seeing God loving them and joining God loving them.

 

[xsimmsx]

How about I explain it as there is no trinity. Yeha a biblical definition of the Godhead. ONE PERSON.

 

[ZoneChaos]

Biblical Terminology:

The Bible shows us that the Father is God.
The Bible shows us that Jesus, the Son, is God.
The Bible shows us that the Holy Spirit is God.

The Bible shows us that there is only one God.

The Bible shows us that the Father is not the Son or the Spirit.
The Bible shows us that the Son is not the Father or the Spirit
The Bible shows us that the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

Now, if we view this as a doctrine... what should we call this doctrine?

Wether or not "Trininty" is a biblical Term or not, it is a term that is used to contain the above biblical statements.

 

[True Believer]

Since God always existed (Ps 90:2), how can the Word be God, if the
Word was created?

Actually the Bible never says that Jesus was God. The problem lies in
the translation of John 1:1. Notice this translation:

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was a god." (NWT)

The insertion of the word "a" can totally change the meaning, can't
it. But is it justified? First of all, not only the NWT gives that
meaning. Notice these:

"what God was, the Word was." (NE);
"the Logos was divine." (MO);
"the Word was divine." (AT; SD);
"a god was the Word." (interlinear ED) ;
"the Word was a god" (NTIV).

But you may be quick to point out that "a" is not in the original
Greek documents that this was translated from. You would be correct.
Actually, the indefinite article "a" is not found in any of the
ancient Greek NT documents from which Bibles translated from. Thus any
time you see the indefinite article "a" in the NT, you are seeing an
insertion by the translators for what they believe to be clarity.

Now go back and look at the original passage again at John 1:1. Notice
that the word "god" (Greek "theos") is used twice. The first word
"god" has the definite article "the" in front of it. But the second
does not. Does that make any difference? Yes, it can make all the
difference.

The Bible translator William Barclay gets into specifics when he says
that when a Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of
it, it becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an
identity (like a noun). And the second "theos" has no definite article
preceding it.

Thus the first "theos" is referring to Almighty God (the God), but the
second "theos" means god-like, not Almighty God. Even Satan is
referred to as god-like. 2 Co 4:4,

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that
they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is
the image of God." (NIV)

So if Paul can call Satan a "god", cannot John call Jesus "a god"? Of
course he can, and did since that is what the Greek grammar shows John
meant there at John 1:1.

Yes, Jesus NEVER claimed to be God, nor did any Bible writer say that
Jesus was God. Jesus himself admitted that God was greater than he
was. Joh 14:28,

"You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If
you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the
Father is greater than I." (NIV)

And even when Jesus was murdered, then resurrected, then went back to
Heaven where he originally came from, the apostle Paul wrote under
inspiration that Jesus was still INFERIOR to Almighty God. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

And finally, the writer of John 1:1, the apostle John, sums of his
statements about Jesus near the end of his book at Joh 20:31. Notice
that John does NOT call Jesus God. Rather he says,

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
(NIV)

I hope the above Bible verses have helped you somewhat to see the
truth about what Jesus really was in relation to Almighty God.

 

[ZoneChaos]

Since God always existed (Ps 90:2), how can the Word be God, if the
Word was created?

Well, first, the Word was not created. In the beginning, was the word. "Was" denotes an existance prior to the beginning.

Actually the Bible never says that Jesus was God.

Literally, this is a true statement. Although, Jesus calls Himself a name / title: "I AM". This was known by those who heard Him at the time, that this name/title was only used by God, and only used to refer to God. So, not only do we have the Bible "impying" that Jesus is God, it is a verse in the Bible that is a quote of Jesus.

The problem lies in
the translation of John 1:1. Notice this translation:

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was a god." (NWT)

The insertion of the word "a" can totally change the meaning, can't
it. But is it justified?

Hopefully below you will explain that it is, though I do not think it is. Furthermore, The problem I see regarding John 1:1 is adding the word "a" to it in the first place.

First of all, not only the NWT gives that
meaning. Notice these:

Firdst, let me state something about the NWT: This is the Bible of the Jehova's Witnesses. I do not agreee with most of the views held by them as a group or religion and view them as a cult, and their bible is one that has been re-written by man, to suit their beliefs.

I have research to back up the mistranslation of the NWT and we can start another thread if you wish.

But you may be quick to point out that "a" is not in the original
Greek documents that this was translated from. You would be correct.
Actually, the indefinite article "a" is not found in any of the
ancient Greek NT documents from which Bibles translated from. Thus any
time you see the indefinite article "a" in the NT, you are seeing an
insertion by the translators for what they believe to be clarity.

The translators of the NWT, to be more specific.

Now go back and look at the original passage again at John 1:1. Notice
that the word "god" (Greek "theos") is used twice. The first word
"god" has the definite article "the" in front of it.

Looking at this orignal greek... I don't see it:

"logos en pros theos" / "logos en theos"
Word was with God / Word was God

But the second
does not. Does that make any difference? Yes, it can make all the
difference.

Sure, if the article "the" gets added as well. Take them both out of the verse, as it is int he King James:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The Bible translator William Barclay gets into specifics when he says
that when a Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of
it, it becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an
identity (like a noun). And the second "theos" has no definite article
preceding it.

Well, instead of me arguing this point of articles with you, since it has been done so many times by many others, let me allow William Barclay to make a note on his scholarship with regards to his translation, this verse, adn his thoughts in the NWT in general:



Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:

"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."




"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is . . . of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves." (Letter dated 26th August, 1977)




​

If you can find an acredited scholar that actually supports the NWT, let me know...

Thus the first "theos" is referring to Almighty God (the God), but the
second "theos" means god-like, not Almighty God. Even Satan is
referred to as god-like. 2 Co 4:4,

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that
they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is
the image of God." (NIV)

So if Paul can call Satan a "god", cannot John call Jesus "a god"? Of
course he can, and did since that is what the Greek grammar shows John
meant there at John 1:1.[/quote]Until you present somethign to support this statement (what was said in your last point does not count, since Baclay himself accuses you of misusing it), lets move on...

Yes, Jesus NEVER claimed to be God, nor did any Bible writer say that
Jesus was God. Jesus himself admitted that God was greater than he
was. Joh 14:28,

"You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If
you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the
Father is greater than I." (NIV)

The word used for Father here is pater, not theos.. so saying "God was greater..." is incorrect.. the text says "Father was greater..." which is accepted in the Trinity Doctrine. The Father is greater than the Son within the relationship of Trinity proper.

And even when Jesus was murdered, then resurrected, then went back to
Heaven where he originally came from, the apostle Paul wrote under
inspiration that Jesus was still INFERIOR to Almighty God. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

And finally, the writer of John 1:1, the apostle John, sums of his
statements about Jesus near the end of his book at Joh 20:31. Notice
that John does NOT call Jesus God. Rather he says,

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
(NIV)

I hope the above Bible verses have helped you somewhat to see the
truth about what Jesus really was in relation to Almighty God.

I think God would have guided the first English translations to include this , if it were needed. [/quote]The verses above only support Jesus' Hypostatic Union nature of being both God and man.

 

[True Believer]

Now that you have attacked this post. I will tell you. It came from a NON Jehovahs Witness who posted this information on Christian Links website I copied it after asking I posted it here and one other place. Because it is so close to what is taught by the NWT and the WBTS. I knew it would be jumped on as being from them. I am just pointing out the predjudice here amoung many. James the Author does not agree with most of what I believe but still this shows that it is not just the WBTS that sees some things in this light. Fault can be found with any teaching if you come at it at the right angle and one which publishes what it teaches is an open target.Most hide in the dark and never state in public their beliefs only generally accepted Ideas are out in the open.There are many translations and translations of translations all written by men or more specifically translated by men to support their theology. What it gets down to for me is what makes more sense about Jesus when comparing the many translations and teachings and making the scriptures mesh in a cohesive structure.

 

[ZoneChaos]

Now that you have attacked this post. I will tell you. It came from a NON Jehovahs Witness who posted this information on Christian Links website I copied it after asking I posted it here and one other place.

I did not realize you made that statement until I saw it posted in the other thread. However, if they are not JW.. they are being led by them. The view expressed in your post originates from the JW.

Because it is so close to what is taught by the NWT and the WBTS. I knew it would be jumped on as being from them.

You quoted the NWT as a source. What did you expect?

I am just pointing out the predjudice here amoung many. James the Author does not agree with most of what I believe but still this shows that it is not just the WBTS that sees some things in this light. Fault can be found with any teaching if you come at it at the right angle and one which publishes what it teaches is an open target.

Are you saying that despite it flaw, it should be accepted?!?

Most hide in the dark and never state in public their beliefs only generally accepted Ideas are out in the open.

Well, that's not me.

There are many translations and translations of translations all written by men or more specifically translated by men to support their theology. What it gets down to for me is what makes more sense about Jesus when comparing the many translations and teachings and making the scriptures mesh in a cohesive structure.

Try bouncing questions about the Bible off of the source, instead of other translations.

I never look to man to answer a question about God. Thats's like asking a 10 year old's advice on his retirment.

 

[ZoneChaos]

And, either way it should be obvious that the text you posted is not a viable text for resolving issues regarding the mysteries of the Trinity. My only goal, was to discredit the statement of the text.

 

[Der Alte]

You say that there isn't a contradition. Yes, as you point out, God caused his son "to be" of a woman. And notice that in the list of meanings for ginomai, we have: to become (come into being), be fullfilled, be made, etc.

Now from what I read,that sure does look like a contradiction of:
And, yes, the Logos is the doer of the action. God spoke the word (Logos), and it happened.

I do so love it when people who know absolutely nothing about a language attempt to correct someone who does. As you will note, in the definition I posted, the primary meaning of "ginomai" is "cause to be." And quite a ways down the list is a secondary meaning of "to be made." There are several different tenses, voices, and moods in the Greek language. I have already posted my documentation for the correct translation of the word in John 1:14.

Therefore, since you presume to challenge that translation and the documentation I provided, please provide us with documentation that the word "ginomai" in the second Aorist tense, middle deponent voice, and indicative mood, egeneto/egeneto, as in Jn 1:14, is ever translated, "made," in the N.T., and explain why that translation is more correct than that which I posted. Can we expect that any time soon?

"And, yes, the Logos is the doer of the action. God spoke the word (Logos), and it happened." Nice try, but no matter how you wiggle, twist and add to the scripture, in your statement God is the doer. John 1:14 does NOT say, "God spoke the word and etc.." It says, "The Logos, (acting upon himself) became flesh. Here for you to ignore once again Robertson's exegesis of John 1:1 and 14

A.T. Robertson-Word Pictures in the N.T.-Joh 1:1 -

In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.

Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).

The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jo_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Phi_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism [i.e. JW. DA] also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.
​