Jesus and the Trinity

[Balthasar]

By the way Odsolo,

The WTBS has been corrupting scripture for about 150 years. They have scores of wanna be, never was, never will be Bible scholars rewriting the Bible to fit their false doctrine. They have been flip-flopping on what they teach for the same length of time. All those so-called leaders and scholars with all the latest electronic research tools and they can't get it right.

And this same bunch of Bartimaeuses send their slaves out to criticize the early church because these Christian men, only a few years out of pagansim, who faced death every day for their faith, probably did not have a complete copy of the O.T. they certainly did not travel from town to down, country to country, with 40-50 pounds of scrolls, the N.T. had not been written, but this 'society" expects them to have a completely formulated, completely articulated doctrine, when NONE of them can do it.

And if you are going to claim to be quoting ECF, cite the specific writing, "Tertullian said. . ." ain't gonna get it.

How does the above have any bearing on Tertullian's belief that "there was a time when neither sin existed with Him(God), nor the Son" or that God has not always been a Father?

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

LINK TO THE POST. You do understand English don't you.

In post 660 you made the following accusation:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20192496&postcount=660

The "Trinity" does not say anything. You have not correctly stated the "doctrine" of the Triune nature of God, i.e. Trinity. You haven't read your Bible. All I see is is parroting empty piece meal arguments from your religion. How many thrones in heaven, how many on the throne, where is Jesus sitting, how many on the throne?

Show me where,how and why I've misrepresented the trinity doctrine.

If you cannot show where, how and why I've not correctly stated the trinity, please recant your accusation.

This is my fifth request.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi again hybrid,

• 
  [*]200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)
  

• 200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7).

• 200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12)
• 200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)
• 200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
• 200 AD Tertullian "So too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God; and the two are one…. In his birth he is God and man united." (Apology, ch 21)

But in what context does Tertullian say the Father is one substance with Son? Have you read Against Praxeas chapter 3? He compared the Son and the Spirit to angels in his defense of mantaining there is no division of the one substance of God. He said the angels are actually members of the Father's own substance, and since their existence does not destroy God's oneness, then neither does the Son and Spirit. His "Sun" analogy is to be seen in this light, encompassing creation withing the realm of God. Tertullian is the closest trinitarians come to any Church Father espousing the doctrine of the trinity, but as you can see for yourself he falls far short. Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E. for example, called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Are you aware in Against Praxeas Tertullian at first argues for the binitarian position and called the Holy Spirit the Word of God? He was all over the place. In 207 he joined the Montanists. These folks believed themselves to be the Holy Spirit of God incarnate! Tertullian spoke in very modalistic terms when he formulated his Godhead in Latin as tres personae, una substantia. Sometimes he was a binitarian, at other times a trinitarian(actually Modalist) and at other times his God "wore the mask" of more than three personified beings !.


best wishes,

 

[gort]

Balthasar quotes:

Isn't this what I tried explaining to you last post, that the term used to designate the "Word" is Theos(God), as opposed to Ho Theos(The God) when it refers to God Almighty in the context of John 1:1? You're missing the point because you're relying on the trinitarianEnglish translation which does not distinguish between Theos and Ho Theos in John 1:1. It's very clear in the Greek.

No, Logos is what I had in mind, the divine expression.

But not by him.

ok.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are ...KJV

Col 1:16 Everything was created by him, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by God's Son, and everything was made for him. CEV

Because Jesus was the perfect image of the Father. If you want to take this literally it's a case for Modalism, not Trinitarianism.

Could'nt be modalism, as there are numerous places found in Scripure that would prohibit such.

Because Jesus was the perfect image of the Father...

You're getting warmer.....


<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

No, Logos is what I had in mind, the divine expression.

What do you mean by "divine expression"? If you mean image of God instead of actually God Almighty you're on the right track.

Origen says A. John uses two words for God(Theos vs. Ho Theos) in John 1:1 . Whereelse Logos as God is referred to by him as Theos (just as human judges are also called Theos in John 10:34 etc.) God Almighty as God is referred to by him as Ho Theos in John 1:1. Are you with me?

ok.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are ...KJV

Nice try. You're taking my intented usage of the word 'by" in my last post out of context. In that post I was using the word "by" in the sense of it's application to the prime mover. The intent of the word "by" in Col. 1:16 is as I would say to you , "By me this house was built" (although it was actually my father who built the house since he provided the finances and the carpenters. I can say the house was built by me because, as my father's delegated representative, I passed down his instructions to the carpenters and directed them what to do.)

If you read back immediately to Col. 1:15 it says, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation". It was "by" this "firstborn of all creation" that everything was created, although God was ultimately responsible for the creation. That's why Christ said,"On my own I can do nothing." John 1:3 captures puts it in another way, "Through him all things were made."

Could'nt be modalism, as there are numerous places found in Scripure that would prohibit such.

Subjective. Similarily, Oneness Pentacoastals would argue there are numerous places found in Scripture that would prohibit trinitarianism.

Here's your problem: Standing on it's own the following scripture ,"He who has seen me has seen the Father" makes sense only two ways.

(a) Christ was the perfect image of the Father.
(b) Christ was the Father.

Pick one.

 

[gort]

What do you mean by "divine expression"? If you mean image of God instead of actually God Almighty you're on the right track.

Image and essence of God Almighty as revealed to man by the word of God. In all things and ways. The very heart of God, especially.

Origen says A. John usage two words for God(Theos vs. Ho Theos) in John 1:1 . Whereelse Logos as God is referred to by him as Theos, just as human judges are also called Theos in John 10:34 etc., God Almighty as God is referred to by him as Ho Theos in John 1:1. Are you with me?

I find theos is used in every instance for God.

Nice try. You're taking my intented usage of the word 'by" in my last post out of context. In that post I was using the word "by" in the sense of it's application to the prime mover. The intent of the word "by" in Col. 1:16 is as I would say to you , "By me this house was built" (although it was actually my father who built the house since he provided the finances and the carpenters. I can say the house was built by me because, as my father's delegated representative, I passed down his instructions to the carpenters and directed them what to do.)

Thank you. Your intended usage of the word 'by' can be carried further. You could have designed the house yourself, and built it with your hands in its entirety.

But we're talking about God and the creation of all things. Unless angels have that ability, I'm left with God as the creator.

If you read back immediately to Col. 1:15 it says, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation". It was "by" this "firstborn of all creation" that everything was created, although God was ultimately responsible for the creation. That's why Christ said,"On my own I can do nothing." John 1:3 captures puts it in another way, "Through him all things were made."

The KJV renders it "creature" and not "creation". Regardless, before the foundations of the world, He was.

Here's your problem: Standing on it's own the following scripture ,"He who has seen me has seen the Father" makes sense only two ways.

(a) Christ was the perfect image of the Father.
(b) Christ was the Father.

Pick one.

Neither. Me thinks you're looking at it literal.

Try looking deeper.

Jesus once said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him. But the things that come from the man are what defiles him. And these things come from the heart.

The opposite is also true.

So, going back to your question above, the answer is...

(c) Christ is the very heart of God


<><

 

[Harlin]

Yes and you haven’t heard OPRAH yet!


From what I read from revelation, all sorts of beings shout for joy in heaven on a 24 hour basis. It’s noisy in heaven sis.


Yes Virginia, there is no santa claus.

Because I prefer to believe in ONE god in three persons than to believe in One Greater god and one lesser god, and I thought you hate paganism…

Then let me tell you what God is…

God is spirit
God is love
God is light
God is all powerful
God is all knowing
God is eternal


God transcends creation, nature and personalities

These are the essences of god.

peace

Hi Hybrid, God bless you, I appreciate your humour with the OPRAH thing. It would not surprise me in the slightest if she did have an explaination!!. I agree with you heaven would be noisy, but, I am not convinced that it will be the same kinds of noise on earth. True worship is definitely something I pray to be able to participate in.

I never said Jesus was inferior to God. Did God say to an inferior, "Let us make man in our image"?.........ABSOLUTELY NOT........any doctrine that takes away the deity of Christ is erroneous in my opinion. The Bible is very clear on this point, although some modern translations do attack the deity of Christ. Paul states that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God, this can only be true if Jesus is equal with God. Paul was an inspired man and I believe him. Jesus is the creator, something that only God can do. Only God can give life. My understanding is that the only difference between the Father and the Son is age, the Son has every other aspect of divinity, all these things He obtained by virtue of His birth.


Still am opposed to paganism too by the way, just for the record. . Honestly do they have no Santa Claus in Virginia?

Harlin

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Image and essence of God Almighty as revealed to man by the word of God. In all things and ways. The very heart of God, especially.

I understand Christ is the "image of God"(Col 1:15), but where do you get "Christ is the image and essence of God"? Verse and chapter please? Also if you claim Christ is the "very heart of God, especially" please show us which scripture, so we can see what that scripture actually says.

Col 1:15

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

It's like saying Bob is a splitting image of his father Jack. From this statement we do not conclude Bob is essentially Jack or Bob is the same being as Jack his father, if language and words have any meaning at all. No, no, we say Bob is like his father, but the two are not the same being .

The words "firstborn of all creation" render Christ within the sub-set of things created. There is no honest way around this. To say the Son is a second person of the same being as his Father is to render the terms Father and Son nonsensical.

I find theos is used in every instance for God.

Even humans are called Theos in John 10:34.Why don't you call these humans God?

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word(Logos) and the Word(Logos) was with God(Ho Theos) and the Word (Logos) was God(Theos)"

Do you not see why A. John uses Ho Theos for God and Theos for Jesus in John 1:1. Origen the church father saw it, and explained why and he was the foremost scholar of his time in the Greek !

Thank you. Your intended usage of the word 'by' can be carried further. You could have designed the house yourself, and built it with your hands in its entirety.

The usage of the word "by" in Co. 1:16 cannot be "carried further" to mean Christ was the principle of creation(prime mover) because Col. 1:15 clearly refers to Christ as the first born of creation. The prologue of John says the world was created through Christ. Col. 1:15 by itself refutes trinitarianism. It's the most disliked verse in all scripture by "Christians".

But we're talking about God and the creation of all things. Unless angels have that ability, I'm left with God as the creator.

Exactly, unless creatures like Jesus(Col. 1:15) and angels have that ability, you're left with God as the Creator.

The KJV renders it "creature" and not "creation". Regardless, before the foundations of the world, He was.

Even the angels were around before the foundation of the world.

Neither. Me thinks you're looking at it literal.

I see, so it's not to be taken literally! Hence I'm right when I said, standing on it's own the scripture "He who has seen me has seen the Father" renders trinitarianism false.

Jesus once said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him. But the things that come from the man are what defiles him. And these things come from the heart.

The opposite is also true.

Try looking deeper.

So, going back to your question above, the answer is...

How is that an argument?

"He who has seen me has seen the Father"

End of story. either christ is the Father or he's the image of the Father. Pick one.

c) Christ is the very heart of God

You keep saying that. How does "Christ being the very heart of God" make him God? And which scripture? Am I missing something here? Is it like the "immaculate heart of Mary" or something like that?

best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Harlin,

I never said Jesus was inferior to God. Did God say to an inferior, "Let us make man in our image"?.........ABSOLUTELY NOT........

Do you not believe Christ when he said he's inferior to the Father?

"You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I,'" (John 14:23)

Language does not get any clearer than that.

Harlin, what words could Jesus have used even if he had wanted to, to convince a trinitarian, say John, that he's inferior to the Father? If the scripture had quoted Christ Jesus as having said, " I'm not as powerful as my Father", "I'm really smaller than my Father, believe me", "My Father is superior to me", John the trinitarian would simply turn around and say "yeh right!, he said those things as a human, but as God his Father is not really greater than him." Jesus plainly said ,"My Father is greater than I", but John would say, "No, not really, God the Father is not greater than Jesus . "



What kind of doctrine is this hypostatic union which makes it impossible for Jesus to deny himself God?

The Bible is very clear on this point,

Are you seriously tell people the bible is very clear on the "deity" of Christ?

Paul states that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God, this can only be true if Jesus is equal with God.

Phil. 2:6 is actually a strong verse against Trinitarianism and is one of my favourites! Christ "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"(NIV). If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not "grasp" at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. Satan on the other hand grasped at equality with God and was "cast down". It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some trinitarians say, "Well he was not grasping for equality with the Father." That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

Jesus is the creator, something that only God can do.

How can the firstborn of creation(Col. 1:15), himself within the sub-set of things created, be the creator?

Only God can give life.

Jesus received authority to give life from God. Remember Christ said, "On my own I can do nothing". Know where?

best wishes,

 

[hybrid]

Hi hybrid,


Tertullian is saying there was a time when the Son was not a distinct person from the Father, which is problametic for the trinitatian conception, no matter how you try to parcel his words.

tertullian also said that what god brought forth was at once god. and also god at once was the father, the son, the spirit.

in this context i think it is fair to say that he meant ..

there was a time when god was not the father
there was a time when god was not the son and
there was a time when god was not the holy spirit..

but when god decided to be triune under his divine economy,

he was at once the father, the son and the holy spirit.
i see no contradiction to trinitarianism here.

even john calvin said it is ridiculous to think that once upon a time there are three persons in a divine race (family)

and they were talking an event before the beginning, whenever that was. but as far as john 1 was concern, the word was with god in the very beginning.

I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that Tertullian is saying the Son was always co-existing with the Father .

when tertullian said, god was at once the father, the son and the spirit.
and also when john said the word was with god in the beginning

Tertullian clearly says the opposite:"There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son;". Even if we accept your read , it's still problametic from the Trinitarian point of view. It would mean the Son was "co-existing" with the Father but not as the Son. What was he "co-existing" with God as before he became the Son? The Trinity doctrine demands that the Son as always existing with the Father as the Son, unchangeable, and as a separate person from the Father. Tertullian says the complete opposite.This is certainly not trinitarianism as the Niceans would later see it.
He's saying God's "Reason" was an effluence from the Father at a point in time after the creation act and becoming the Son.

Here Tertullian is speaking of a time prior to the emergence of the Son. Or are you suggesting God's "Reason" was a separate "person" with Him before He became a Father? Problametic.

the bible has many description between ther elationship of the two.

father and son,
God and his word,
the unbegoten and the begotten god
invisible unapprochable light and the effulgent glory of that light
to name afew.

then there were instances they share the same title.

believe me these facts fit perfectly well under the doctrine of God's divine economy.

Even Arias believed in a Trinity, hybrid.

the momment you guys can differentiate the word BEGOTTEN from CREATED, maybei believe you.

Christ is a Divine affluence of God, Tertullian would say, as a spark is of the fire but not the fire, as the rays of the Sun are not the Sun. Christ was not always the Son of God, but existed in God as God's "reason", and not as a separate person before the creation. You could accuse him of Modalism and Deism, but not really of Nicean trinitarianism.

best wishes,

again the answer is God's divine economy.

 

[hybrid]

hi harlin,

Hi Hybrid, God bless you, I appreciate your humour with the OPRAH thing. It would not surprise me in the slightest if she did have an explaination!!.

I think she said Jesus is god but he can’t possibly be the only way. The lady is a new ager I suppose.

I agree with you heaven would be noisy, but, I am not convinced that it will be the same kinds of noise on earth. True worship is definitely something I pray to be able to participate in.

In essential, unity :In diversity, liberty :In all things, charity
Now who said that….

I never said Jesus was inferior to God.

ooops....

Did God say to an inferior, "Let us make man in our image"?.........ABSOLUTELY NOT........any doctrine that takes away the deity of Christ is erroneous in my opinion.

amen and amen and amen.

My understanding is that the only difference between the Father and the Son is age, the Son has every other aspect of divinity, all these things He obtained by virtue of His birth.

i also thought of the son as literally the son of god therefore also god because he has the dna of god. can you agree with this?

however, i do have a problem to think that the father was older that the son. because to think of the two within the frame of time was to strip them off of their divinity.

for instance, if one of the essential attribute to be god is that he must be eternal (ageless), how can you think of jesus as god when he has age?

and if you think of them as totally separated, then you have two gods, and if you believe them to be equal, they wouldnt be father and son but TWINS. aren't they? this is not acceptable to christianity's monotheism. you still believe christianity is a monotheism, don't you?

have you given thought to the concept of divine economy? because all of these problems i mentioned above can be reconciled there without doing violence to scriptures interpretation.

IMO, The only difference between the father and the son was precisely that. one was the father and the other was the son.

This is to achieve the unity of the essence. Meaning the bible is telling us that Christ was of the same essence (dna) of the father who is god. Therefore the begotten of the son does not pertain to origin of the son but to the nature of the son. Meaning that if the father is eternal so should be the son, if the father is god, so should be the son etc.

In the beginning was the word. Here in not so many words, john declared the eternality of the son.

Still am opposed to paganism too by the way, just for the record. . Honestly do they have no Santa Claus in Virginia?

LOL and god bless.


hybrid

 

[Odsolo]

By the way Odsolo,
How does the above have any bearing on Tertullian's belief that "there was a time when neither sin existed with Him(God), nor the Son" or that God has not always been a Father?

What I said was not in response to your unsupported assertions about Tertullian. However if you cannot see the relevance you should not be participating in this topic.

 

[seebs]

What I said was not in response to your unsupported assertions about Tertullian. However if you cannot see the relevance you should not be participating in this topic.

Friend, this was ill-spoken. It is quite possible that he could see the relevance if you explained it. All you have done is combine an unchariable implication about him with a refusal to actually contribute when it would obviously be trivially easy for you to explain your intent.

If all you're going to post is that you aren't going to explain yourself, you may save time by not posting; we will be able to recognize that you aren't explaining anything.

It is often frustrating when people don't understand an argument or connection that you think is obvious, but it is important to take the time to explain these connections. This makes it easier for everyone to be sure they're talking about the same arguments and positions.

With that on the record, I will ask you as a brother in Christ to explain the relevance as a special kindness to me, because I am not sure I have understood it correctly either. Your explanation is almost certainly more reliable than my casual speculations would be.

 

[Odsolo]

. . .Isn't this what I tried explaining to you last post, that the term used to designate the "Word" is Theos(God), as opposed to Ho Theos(The God) when it refers to God Almighty in the context of John 1:1? You're missing the point because you're relying on the trinitarianEnglish translation which does not distinguish between Theos and Ho Theos in John 1:1. It's very clear in the Greek.

How can you explain or clarify anything in the Greek or Hebrew when you don't know anything about either language? There is NOT one single recognized Greek scholar in the world who agrees with this nonsense.

That's what Origen is saying:
“We next notice John’s usage of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue . . . He uses the article when the name of ‘God’ refers to the uncreated of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named ‘God’ . . . The God who is over all is God with the article . . . all beyond the Only God is made god by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply ‘The God’ but rather ‘god’ . . . The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were, of Him, the prototype.”
Commentary on John’s Gospel, Book 2, Chap. 2

Now lets look at the truth. Lets complete this chopped up, out-of-context quote. Here is the end of the chapter quoted above.

Origen-Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book II)

The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm​

Before trying to argue with this, please look up the definition of "archtypal?" And carefully read and throughly understand the context of this paragraph.

 

[Odsolo]

Jesus was the first person to remain alive after the resurrection, hence he's the first born from the dead.. That's the reason he's called the Alpha and Omega. Get it?

Another unsupported assertion. Please show me from any lexical, grammatical, historical source that in Biblical Greek "resurrection" was equated with "birth."

This is another example of a "cut and paste" from you which serves no purpose , in my opinion.

I give a flip about your opinion of anything. All I have to do to know what your opinion is, is read JW literature.

 

[Balthasar]

Hi hybrid,

tertullian also said that what god brought forth was at once god. and also god at once was the father, the son, the spirit.

As I pointed out to you last post Tertullian believed the angels, which God also brought forth, shared in the same "substance' of God.

in this context i think it is fair to say that he meant ..

there was a time when god was not the father
there was a time when god was not the son and
there was a time when god was not the holy spirit..

Wow! So you think Tertullian believed there was a time when God was not a Trinity. And where does Tertullian say there was a time when God was not a Holy Spirit? As far as I can tell, he says there was a time when the Son was not and God was not a Father.

but when god decided to be triune under his divine economy,

God decided to be triune ? Wasn't He always a trinity?

he was at once the father, the son and the holy spirit.

This is Sabelliasm.

i see no contradiction to trinitarianism here.

You see no contradiction between Sabelliasm and trinitarianism?

even john calvin said it is ridiculous to think that once upon a time there are three persons in a divine race (family)

Let me get this right: Is it your assertion that once upon a time there were not three persons in the Godhead(divine family)? Yes or No?

then there were instances they share the same title.

So it's ok to refer to the Son as the Father?

I don't know how orthodox your trinitarianism is. It's a hybrid doctrine, and Semi-Sabelliastic at the least. Tertullian joined the montanists who were Modalistic in approach.

Just my two cents, and best wishes,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

How can you explain or clarify anything in the Greek or Hebrew when you don't know anything about either language? There is NOT one single recognized Greek scholar in the world who agrees with this nonsense.

Is that the extent of your refutation? All Greek scholars have taken note that the article Ho is missing in John 1:1 when referring to the Word as God.

Before trying to argue with this, please look up the definition of "archtypal?" And carefully read and throughly understand the context of this paragraph

I don't know how much clearer Origen could have gotten Odsolo. He says when A. John refers to the Word(Logos) the article Ho is missing from Theos in John 1:1.

good luck,

 

[Balthasar]

Hi Odsolo,

Another unsupported assertion. Please show me from any lexical, grammatical, historical source that in Biblical Greek "resurrection" was equated with "birth."

Are you saying resurrection has nothing to do with birth?

I give a flip about your opinion of anything. All I have to do to know what your opinion is, is read JW literature.

You shoudn't be making wholesale judgments without listening and understanding what the other person is saying . Be not like an Ostrich with it's head in the sand.

By the way, I'm not a JW.

best wishes Odsolo,

Btw., I'm still waiting for you to show me where and how I've misrepresented the Trinity doctrine.This is my sixth request.

 

[gort]

Hi Odsolo,




Is that the extent of your refutation? All Greek scholars have taken note that the article Ho is missing in John 1:1 when referring to the Word as God.





I don't know how much clearer Origen could have gotten Odsolo. He says when A. John refers to the Word(Logos) the article Ho is missing from Theos in John 1:1.

good luck,

Hi,

Do you have references for 'all greek scholars' that say 'Ho' is missing?

I'm trusting in the validity of my bible being correctly translated. I don't know who you refer to as all scholars....and primary sources please.

Also, for the Origen quote?

While I've not yet studied Origen, I did run across something interesting about him which I'll give a link to later. In effect, Origen does need to be excused from some of the things he put forth......

<><

 

[Balthasar]

Hi daneel,

Do you have references for 'all greek scholars' that say 'Ho' is missing?

I'm trusting in the validity of my bible being correctly translated. I don't know who you refer to as all scholars....and primary sources please.

Are you kidding me? Everyone with an ounce of Greek knows the article is missing when the Logos is called God in John 1:1. Odsolo claims to know Greek, ask him. I'm not in the business of furnishing scholars for the obvious. Or ask any trinitarian who knows Greek, or any Greek speaking person, if you don't believe me.

Here's evidence for the obvious:

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

Enarxh|hn(5713) ologov,kaiologovhn(5713) provtonqeon,kaiqeovhn(5713) ologov.



http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=joh+12%3A14&section=0&it=nas&oq=joh%252012%3A14&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=joh&ngt=GoTo%3A&ng=1&ncc=12

Also, for the Origen quote?

While I've not yet studied Origen, I did run across something interesting about him which I'll give a link to later. In effect, Origen does need to be excused from some of the things he put forth......

Great! We will dissect them.


best wishes,