Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[cgaviria]

Fortunately enough we accept Moses and the Prophets.

However, St. Paul warns us not to accept the words of anyone teaching "another Gospel," even if it is "an angel from Heaven."

After all, the devil could claim to be an "angel from Heaven," omittng that he was fallen and banished from heaven.

So we do not take the word of angels where it cintradicts the Gospel we have received, in accordance with the instructions St. Paul gave to the Galatians.

The Syriac Orthodox sing Galatians 1:8 as a hymn before the reading of the epistles in our liturgy.

No you don't, because if you had, you would believe the account of Genesis concerning what the Father brought into existence first before the word THEN AFTER began speaking things into existence. The order of things is there, although not obvious. You need to dissect scripture deeper to uncover the truth. Again, NO SCRIPTURE THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED TO ME HAS REFUTED WHAT I AM SAYING.

 

[Berean777]

Strong point here I'll admit, but it is still erred. Begotten does not indicate conception. Look at the usage in other passages using the very same "monogenēs" Greek word,

And as he approached to the gate of the city, that behold, [*2*was conveyed *1*one having died], a son, an only child of his mother, and she was a widow; and a multitude of the city, a fit amount was with her. (Luke 7:12 [ABP])

for his daughter was an only child to him, about [*2*years old *1*twelve], and she was dying. And in his going, the multitudes thronged him. (Luke 8:42 [ABP])

And behold, a man from the multitude yelled out, saying, Teacher, I beseech you to look upon my son! for he is an only child to me. (Luke 9:38 [ABP])

So the translation should actually read, ONLY CHILD, by the mere usage of it in other passages. Why is he an ONLY CHILD? Because again, as I said before, he was CREATED DIRECTLY by the FATHER, and THROUGH HIM, HE CREATED EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT IS WHY HE IS DECLARED AS THE ONLY SON.

In one instance The Living Word Jesus Christ is called the firstborn of all creation and in another instance the ONLY CHILD. now this would seem a contradiction if you try and model the word monogenēs from a procreation point of view. In many cases in scripture the word FIRSTBORN is used to the child who not necessarily was the eldest and so in that respect the implication of the usage of the word firstborn is pointing to more favoured for the blessings of the father.

So if we consider the word firstborn in the Greek we have the following.........

Concordance
prototokos: first-born
Original Word: πρωτότοκος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prototokos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro-tot-ok'-os)
Short Definition: first-born
Definition: first-born, eldest.
HELPS Word-studies
4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent(Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).

4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).

[4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]

So prōtótokos (firstborn) must be tied in context to monogenēs as pertaining to our Lord and saviour.

What this means is that the word monogenēs has another implied meaning to it and it is......

It means "only" or "only one"? Does the word mean "only, single, or unique" son, or "special, privileged, favorite, or legitimate" son? Refer to John 1:18 and John 3:16.

Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind".

monogenēs (μονογενὴς) may be used both as an adjective, that is, monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special. Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs (μονογενὴς) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, only child, or only legitimate child, special child, and also on its own as a noun; o monogenēs "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".

Bearing in mind that if Jesus is one of many begotten of the Father, meaning one of many created beings, then he would not have the titles of "the only one of his kind" and "the only legitimate child" which implies that God created only one child for himself and made him the one and only of his kind if we were to consider it from a procreation context.

It can be applied to an only child, or only legitimate child, special child, and also on its own as a noun; o monogenēs "the only one", or "the only legitimate child". The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having especial virtue.

So prototokos (firstborn) and o monogenēs "the only one", or "the only legitimate child" go hand in hand and therefore are pointing to an uncreated being who transcends time and space and in John's Revelation he titles himself the first and the last, meaning the one of his kind, Alpha and Omega.

In conclusion the Living Word is not a created being but is the Creator himself, Yahweh.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Strong point here I'll admit, but it is still erred. Begotten does not indicate conception. Look at the usage in other passages using the very same "monogenēs" Greek word,

And as he approached to the gate of the city, that behold, [*2*was conveyed *1*one having died], a son, an only child of his mother, and she was a widow; and a multitude of the city, a fit amount was with her. (Luke 7:12 [ABP])

for his daughter was an only child to him, about [*2*years old *1*twelve], and she was dying. And in his going, the multitudes thronged him. (Luke 8:42 [ABP])

And behold, a man from the multitude yelled out, saying, Teacher, I beseech you to look upon my son! for he is an only child to me. (Luke 9:38 [ABP])

So the translation should actually read, ONLY CHILD, by the mere usage of it in other passages. Why is he an ONLY CHILD? Because again, as I said before, he was CREATED DIRECTLY by the FATHER, and THROUGH HIM, HE CREATED EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT IS WHY HE IS DECLARED AS THE ONLY SON.

There is more than 1 meaning to monogenes....I don't read Greek so I go some translation help.
From gotquestions.org
The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

It's this last phrase ("only begotten" used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn't God; i.e., that Jesus isn't equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten." What this fails to note is that "begotten" is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.

So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

The bottom line is that terms such as "Father" and "Son," descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.

 

[Wgw]

Strong point here I'll admit, but it is still erred. Begotten does not indicate conception. Look at the usage in other passages using the very same "monogenēs" Greek word,

And as he approached to the gate of the city, that behold, [*2*was conveyed *1*one having died], a son, an only child of his mother, and she was a widow; and a multitude of the city, a fit amount was with her. (Luke 7:12 [ABP])

for his daughter was an only child to him, about [*2*years old *1*twelve], and she was dying. And in his going, the multitudes thronged him. (Luke 8:42 [ABP])

And behold, a man from the multitude yelled out, saying, Teacher, I beseech you to look upon my son! for he is an only child to me. (Luke 9:38 [ABP])

So the translation should actually read, ONLY CHILD, by the mere usage of it in other passages. Why is he an ONLY CHILD? Because again, as I said before, he was CREATED DIRECTLY by the FATHER, and THROUGH HIM, HE CREATED EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT IS WHY HE IS DECLARED AS THE ONLY SON.

I did not equate the act of begetting with conception, old chap; far less can one logically argue that "begotten" means "only child" given the number of "begats" in the geneology of our Lord which refer to persons who had siblings, not to mention the obvious dictionary definition bit.

 

[Berean777]

There is more than 1 meaning to monogenes....I don't read Greek so I go some translation help.
From gotquestions.org
The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."

It's this last phrase ("only begotten" used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn't God; i.e., that Jesus isn't equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word "begotten" and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be "begotten." What this fails to note is that "begotten" is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.

So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

The bottom line is that terms such as "Father" and "Son," descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.

That is two witnesses who have said the same thing in the Space of two posts simultaneously.

Here was my post.....

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-is-unscriptural.7918869/page-5#post-68909205">Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural</a>

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is two witnesses who have said the same thing in the Space of two posts simultaneously.

Here was my post.....

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-is-unscriptural.7918869/page-5#post-68909205">Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural</a>

You know what they say....Great minds think alike....

 

[Berean777]

You know what they say....Great minds think alike....

Wow I can only praise the Lord, his works are glorious.

 

[Wgw]

No you don't, because if you had, you would believe the account of Genesis concerning what the Father brought into existence first before the word THEN AFTER began speaking things into existence. The order of things is there, although not obvious.

Genesis 1 does not describe the creation of our Lord. You could attempt I suppose to argue a somewhat mystical interpretation of "Let there be light," but not only is this not obvious as you say, it is obscure, and your whole argument rests on effectively, "how could wgw be so thick headed as to not accept the plain meaning of scripture," which does not fly if the meaning of scripture becomes obscure and reliant upon a mystical interpretation.

However, I am not one to shy away from obscurity or mysticism. So I will take your point and run with it, until I find myself colliding with the brick wall of John 1:2, which directly refutes this or any related argument.

In fact, John 1:2 if read in accordance with all of John 1:1-14 has the effect of refuting the idea that our Lord could possibly b created in any sense, especially when we comoare it with Genesis.

Thus, we can reject the idea of the Lord being created not only on the basis of his creation not being referred to in Scripture, not only on the basis of the problems such an act would have in terms of reconciliation with the Shema and the ten commandments, but also, on this basis, that being that unless the Lord crated himself, we run afoul of John 1:2.

This is why I insist that the rejection of the Trinity is unscriptural. We cannot rationally argue against it even on the basis of mystical, obscure and esoteric interpretations of Genesis 1 without running afoul of John 1:1-14. There is a reason why several churches read those verses at the end of every service, such as Latin Rite Catholics, the Armenian Orthodox, and many Anglicans, and why the Eastern Orthodox read John 1:1-17 on Pascha.

Again, NO SCRIPTURE THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED TO ME HAS REFUTED WHAT I AM SAYING.

So John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, John 14:7, et cetera, are not scripture, now?

 

[Imagican]

I do not comment on private spiritual experiences; I can truthfully claim to have had them, but since you cannot verify that ay more than I can verify your own experiences, much less the nature or cause of these experiences, it is pointless to even go down this whole subjective avenue.

No it's NOT pointless. I have openly offered witness and testimony that you indicate is POINTLESS and refuse to respond other than to say you've had them but refuse to discuss them.

From your perspective, I guess the events of the Bible were pretty much pointless so far as the personal experiences of those like Paul or anyone else that had personal revelation, EXCEPT those that the 'church' considers to be 'Saints or church fathers'?

I think that offering our personal experiences is one of the means that we SHARE our faith with one another. And it's also a means for us to USE to determine whether the words of others are the TRUTH or simply fabrications. For it is MY belief that the Holy Spirit RECOGNIZES the Holy Spirit. But one would have to BELIEVE that The Holy Spirit does INDEED have the POWER to offer us conviction.

What economics provides is a rough but useful theory; my own economics professor had a keen understanding of these issues and was a superb mentor to me. In any case, economics is not Christianity; we actually have an authoritative book in the form of the Bible, which outlines the basic tenets of our God-given faith, which one could argue constitutes a verbal icon of our Lord.

Yet the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is NOT the AUTHORITY but it's 'church fathers' and SAINTS. Please don't insist that I offer QUOTES from POPES and other members of the clergy on this issue.

Because, with all due respect, you aren't St. John the Apostle, old chap.

I don't need to be to have the exact same understanding. Unless, of course, God CAN'T reveal it to me??????

In some cases, yes, where your opinions contain verifiable factual or logical error, which has been the case on several occasions. On several occasions you have made assertions, claimed them as a "matter of FACT," and then I have proceededto refute these assertions in an inependently verifieable manner.

Well, like in all things, just because something is a fact doesn't mean that everyone is going to accept it as fact. I watched the news the other night and a news crew filmed a moving company that had been accused of it's movers stealing from customers. The hidden camera plainly showed a guy stealing money out of night table before moving it outside. So they show the film to the guy doing the stealing and his first response is: "That ain't ME man." So unless He was a 'Dr Jeckle and Mr Hyde', it was OBVIOUSLY him. So that people are able to deny facts doesn't alter the truth in the least.

And let me add this: What I state as FACT isn't determined by men making up their own definitions. If I use that term, I can most certainly offer the evidence. But I can't convince someone of a fact that has chosen a different measure. In other words, what may well be the 'facts' as taught by a 'church' don't necessarily constitute the FACTS as offered by God.

How about this to consider:

False teachers, preachers, churches are in the news DAILY. You know, preacher stealing the money of the 'church', pastors teaching member that he's Jesus. Jim Joneses and David Koreshes. People making gibberish noises and calling 'tongues' of angels. The list is practically endless.

What does that PATTERN indicate? And then there is the IDEAL that each 'church' is THE 'church' and all the rest are misguided. Why do you believe this WORKS? For it seems to be pretty UNIVERSAL.

And then one day it was revealed to ME: the answer is simple. And it's OBVIOUS but those that NEED someone else to LEAD them CAN'T admit it or it would be like, "Yeah I know that smoking cigarettes is KILLING ME, but I'm going to DO IT ANYWAY". So most 'church goers' DO the same thing the smoker does: IGNORE such questions or answers even though the answer is SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.

So I'm NOT here to discuss the traditions of MEN so much as what is revealed to us through scripture and Spirit. I'm certainly not here to TEACH traditions of men. For the Bible plainly WARNS us not to follow such a path. For there is a very broad difference between the traditions OUTLINED in the Bible, taught by the apostles, and those created, defined and perpetuated by MEN.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Hoghead1]

No you don't, because if you had, you would believe the account of Genesis concerning what the Father brought into existence first before the word THEN AFTER began speaking things into existence. The order of things is there, although not obvious. You need to dissect scripture deeper to uncover the truth. Again, NO SCRIPTURE THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED TO ME HAS REFUTED WHAT I AM SAYING.

 

[Hoghead1]

I find it difficult to assume genesis is anything other than simply two contradictory accounts. In Gen. 1, first the animals are created, then, man and woman together. In 2, this order is completely reversed, with man being created, then animals, then woman. Also gen. 1 and two are in radically different styles. So, going on modern biblical scholarship, I believe 2 was written long before 1. I hate top be critical, but a common mistake laity make when thy come to Bible study is that they assume everything in the Bible is true, happened just the way the Bible says it does. So you need to appreciate that the academic world pof biblical studies is a whole other ballgame that what goes on in churches and Sunday-school classes.

 

[Wgw]

No it's NOT pointless. I have openly offered witness and testimony that you indicate is POINTLESS and refuse to respond other than to say you've had them but refuse to discuss them.

I refuse to discuss them because I cannot ask you to believe my own statements when you cannot verify them through rational analysis. I am not God, I am not an angel, I am not a priest, prophet, apostle or theologian, and what I have experienced spiritually should not inform your faith.

From your perspective, I guess the events of the Bible were pretty much pointless so far as the personal experiences of those like Paul or anyone else that had personal revelation, EXCEPT those that the 'church' considers to be 'Saints or church fathers'?

There are objective reasons to regard the experiences of St. Paul and the other holy apostles, prohets and indeed, for different reasons, certain saints, as authoritative in the way your exoeriences or my experiences are not. The apostles and Old Testament prophets and patriarchs in particular command a scriptural authority which I prioritize to an absolute degree over my own sujective pesonal experiences in accordance with 2 Thessalionians 2:15, 1 Galatians 1:8, et cetera.

I think that offering our personal experiences is one of the means that we SHARE our faith with one another. And it's also a means for us to USE to determine whether the words of others are the TRUTH or simply fabrications. For it is MY belief that the Holy Spirit RECOGNIZES the Holy Spirit. But one would have to BELIEVE that The Holy Spirit does INDEED have the POWER to offer us conviction.

This may be true in a certain context, but we are unfortunately far removed from that context. Any such expositins in this case would distract us from our discussion of sacred scripture, whoch os what this thead is about.

Yet the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is NOT the AUTHORITY but it's 'church fathers' and SAINTS. Please don't insist that I offer QUOTES from POPES and other members of the clergy on this issue.

Wheter or not that's true I cannot say; I can say it is not relevant given that I am not Catholic.

I don't need to be to have the exact same understanding. Unless, of course, God CAN'T reveal it to me??????


Well, like in all things, just because something is a fact doesn't mean that everyone is going to accept it as fact. I watched the news the other night and a news crew filmed a moving company that had been accused of it's movers stealing from customers. The hidden camera plainly showed a guy stealing money out of night table before moving it outside. So they show the film to the guy doing the stealing and his first response is: "That ain't ME man." So unless He was a 'Dr Jeckle and Mr Hyde', it was OBVIOUSLY him. So that people are able to deny facts doesn't alter the truth in the least.

And let me add this: What I state as FACT isn't determined by men making up their own definitions. If I use that term, I can most certainly offer the evidence. But I can't convince someone of a fact that has chosen a different measure. In other words, what may well be the 'facts' as taught by a 'church' don't necessarily constitute the FACTS as offered by God.

On several occasions, you have argued that something is a matter of "FACT," I have shown why it is not either according to logic (where it is either fallacous or a subjective opinion) or according to evidence (showing your claim to be inaccurate).

It is vital we differentiate between provable fact and subjective opinion.

How about this to consider:

False teachers, preachers, churches are in the news DAILY. You know, preacher stealing the money of the 'church', pastors teaching member that he's Jesus. Jim Joneses and David Koreshes. People making gibberish noises and calling 'tongues' of angels. The list is practically endless.

Indeed so, but this is a red herring since such cults are not the subject of this thread.

What does that PATTERN indicate? And then there is the IDEAL that each 'church' is THE 'church' and all the rest are misguided. Why do you believe this WORKS? For it seems to be pretty UNIVERSAL.

The pattern indicates we ought to stick to Galatians 1:8 and not trust the subjective religius experiences claimed by third parties when they disagree with the apostolic faith as shown in scripture.

And then one day it was revealed to ME: the answer is simple. And it's OBVIOUS but those that NEED someone else to LEAD them CAN'T admit it or it would be like, "Yeah I know that smoking cigarettes is KILLING ME, but I'm going to DO IT ANYWAY". So most 'church goers' DO the same thing the smoker does: IGNORE such questions or answers even though the answer is SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.

I do not discuss personal revelations. However, I would urge you to consider your argument in light of the actual fact that these days, a great many churchgoers including clergy do not blindly accept what they are told, but ask questions.

So I'm NOT here to discuss the traditions of MEN so much as what is revealed to us through scripture and Spirit. I'm certainly not here to TEACH traditions of men. For the Bible plainly WARNS us not to follow such a path. For there is a very broad difference between the traditions OUTLINED in the Bible, taught by the apostles, and those created, defined and perpetuated by MEN.

Well that's fortunate, given the subject of this thread is whether or not the rejection of the Trinity is scriptural, and thus far, no non-Trinitarian has been able to offer any coherent scriptural exegesis refuting it. In fact, nothing in your reply even addresses my objections regarding the lack of scriptural evidence and engagement from yourself in this thread. In fact, were it not for your protestations to the contrary, I would be inclined to suppose that you only wanted to discuss church tradition, since you are the only one bringing it up.

I could well defend the Trinity on the basis of "because St. Athanasius said so," but you don't see me doing that in this thread; indeed, my whole point was to show that I did not need to, that Athanasius and the other Nicene fathers were simply expressing the plain meaning of scripture, and it looks like I am indeed making that point without much in the way of effective resistance.

 

[cgaviria]

I find it difficult to assume genesis is anything other than simply two contradictory accounts. In Gen. 1, first the animals are created, then, man and woman together. In 2, this order is completely reversed, with man being created, then animals, then woman. Also gen. 1 and two are in radically different styles. So, going on modern biblical scholarship, I believe 2 was written long before 1. I hate top be critical, but a common mistake laity make when thy come to Bible study is that they assume everything in the Bible is true, happened just the way the Bible says it does. So you need to appreciate that the academic world pof biblical studies is a whole other ballgame that what goes on in churches and Sunday-school classes.

Listen man, if you dont believe the scripture is true then you have a deeper problem than just trying to understand Genesis. Lol.

You need to study broader things to then determine the authenticity of the scriptures. Its authenticity is evident through various other historic sources and that have been passed down for many many generations. I went though this same path before. I didn't believe scriptures were true, until I dove into its history. And then one thing points to the other, one historical fact proves the other, and then we finally arrive to the conclusion that these scriptures are indeed real. Then once we determine they are real, then we need to ask, what does it say? It is then that you dive into the Genesis account to try to understand.

 

[Wgw]

I find it difficult to assume genesis is anything other than simply two contradictory accounts. In Gen. 1, first the animals are created, then, man and woman together. In 2, this order is completely reversed, with man being created, then animals, then woman. Also gen. 1 and two are in radically different styles. So, going on modern biblical scholarship, I believe 2 was written long before 1. I hate top be critical, but a common mistake laity make when thy come to Bible study is that they assume everything in the Bible is true, happened just the way the Bible says it does. So you need to appreciate that the academic world pof biblical studies is a whole other ballgame that what goes on in churches and Sunday-school classes.

That depends really on which "academic world" we are talking about. The Orthodox do no subscribe to a fundamentaist view of Genesis, but we do regard it as genuine, and our theologians have advanced scholarship in support of this view.

What you are basically referring to is Protestant "higher criticism," taken to the sort of extreme one associates with Marcus Borg, Jean Dominic Crossan, et cetera; their perspective is not universal and not uncontroversial.

I actually somewhat resent the idea that "serious" scholarship requires us to reject various bits of scripture that seems unlikely; it deprecates the work of excellent theologians who do not travel down that path, and at the same time opens the door to the kind of Thomas Jefferson style moralist-deist-unitarian interpretation which has failed so dramatically in the face of postmoder philosophy and moral relativism.

 

[Berean777]

Genesis 1 does not describe the creation of our Lord. You could attempt I suppose to argue a somewhat mystical interpretation of "Let there be light," but not only is this not obvious as you say, it is obscure, and your whole argument rests on effectively, "how could wgw be so thick headed as to not accept the plain meaning of scripture," which does not fly if the meaning of scripture becomes obscure and reliant upon a mystical interpretation.

However, I am not one to shy away from obscurity or mysticism. So I will take your point and run with it, until I find myself colliding with the brick wall of John 1:2, which directly refutes this or any related argument.

In fact, John 1:2 if read in accordance with all of John 1:1-14 has the effect of refuting the idea that our Lord could possibly b created in any sense, especially when we comoare it with Genesis.

Thus, we can reject the idea of the Lord being created not only on the basis of his creation not being referred to in Scripture, not only on the basis of the problems such an act would have in terms of reconciliation with the Shema and the ten commandments, but also, on this basis, that being that unless the Lord crated himself, we run afoul of John 1:2.

This is why I insist that the rejection of the Trinity is unscriptural. We cannot rationally argue against it even on the basis of mystical, obscure and esoteric interpretations of Genesis 1 without running afoul of John 1:1-14. There is a reason why several churches read those verses at the end of every service, such as Latin Rite Catholics, the Armenian Orthodox, and many Anglicans, and why the Eastern Orthodox read John 1:1-17 on Pascha.



So John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, John 14:7, et cetera, are not scripture, now?

John 1:1-5 also is a summary of the Genesis 1:1-5 account. Let us do a comparative study

Joh. 1:1-5
Genesis 1:1-2)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Genesis 1:1-5
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

What we find is that we are being Introduced to the source of Light, who is the source of all life. Jesus claimed to be that Light. So when he says I am the Light and the Life, we are looking at the definite article. There can only be one definite article. John makes the connection that the Living Word is the one God from the beginning as the (definite article) source of all life. That is why John says...

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Notice also the parallel that is being drawn from the Genesis account, where the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep to where John refers to the Living Word as being the source of Light that shined in the darkness (void / nothingness) and from nothingness life sprung up and the darkness that is nothingness was no more, because life came into existence and the Lord is the Light/life of all created beings (men used as generalised term in KJV).

 

[cgaviria]

John 1:1-5 also is a summary of the Genesis 1:1-5 account. Let us do a comparative study






What we find is that we are being Introduced to the source of Light, who is the source of all life. Jesus claimed to be that Light. So when he says I am the Light and the Life, we are looking at the definite article. There can only be one definite article. John makes the connection that the Living Word is the one God from the beginning as the (definite article) source of all life. That is why John says...

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Notice also the parallel that is being drawn from the Genesis account, where the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep to where John refers to the Living Word as being the source of Light that shined in the darkness (void / nothingness) and from nothingness life sprung up and the darkness that is nothingness was no more, because life came into existence and the Lord is the Light/life of all created beings (men used as generalised term in KJV).

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. Very deep thought. Here is my response,

In the Genesis account, the presence of Jesus Christ is not evident in the coming forth of the existence of light itself, but rather, in the speech that brought it forth into existence. Why do you think John calls him the "Word"? Word means speech. Look up the greek word, "logos". Its usage throughout scripture is synonymous with speaking, talking. So in the very utterance of "let there be light", is Jesus himself made known to us in the Genesis account. And what was his first utterance? He brought forth light into existence. So he is himself, the source of light. Because he brought it forth into existence. In him was also life, because on account of his utterance in Genesis was man made as well. I have an interesting thing I posted on the Genesis account here that you might find interesting, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/

 

[cgaviria]

And also what you might find interesting is that the Genesis account also makes a distinction between the light and the source of light. Jesus Christ is the SOURCE of light! Its so beautiful and wise how God created everything!

 

[Berean777]

I find it difficult to assume genesis is anything other than simply two contradictory accounts. In Gen. 1, first the animals are created, then, man and woman together. In 2, this order is completely reversed, with man being created, then animals, then woman. Also gen. 1 and two are in radically different styles. So, going on modern biblical scholarship, I believe 2 was written long before 1. I hate top be critical, but a common mistake laity make when thy come to Bible study is that they assume everything in the Bible is true, happened just the way the Bible says it does. So you need to appreciate that the academic world pof biblical studies is a whole other ballgame that what goes on in churches and Sunday-school classes.

Listen please. The Genesis account is not meant to be read from a chronological abstract narrative, rather it is from the form of the old concrete functional language structure.

The author is more interested in conveying the functions of one object in relation to the other objects. So in Gen 1 animals are created to be workers in an ecosystem that allows plant life to be sustained, like bees who cross pollenate plants and animals who fertilise and maintain the grass.

In Gen 2 after man is created and has familiarised himself with the ecosystem based on animal and plant life, the author then reverses the order from a functionality point of view where man now is th master of this domain and the garden becomes man's subjects where he names them.

The authors writes

Genesis 2:19-20
19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

So from a concrete functional language of the day, the author is looking at creation from a different vantage point. Genesis 1 all animal and plant life which already were there, were subjects to God. Then after man was created Gensis 2 has God giving dominion to man where he makes all animals and plant life subjects to man.

The mistake that many make is to compare the authors writings to our abstract language and assume that an opposit chronology is given in these two instances, when in fact they are functionally oriented to th objects in play rather than time itself pertaining to chronology.

Look at this verse

5Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

The authors is describing a swamp like ecosystem that was yet to be till by the animals because the functions of the animals was to do just that. The animals had to work the ecosystem before God can bring forth man.

Then the author reverts to the function of the creator by saying

8Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It should become obvious that God from the swamp/marsh like river streams had already created plant life and already used the animals to till it.

Then the author reveals man's function

15The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Man was now given dominion to also take care of the land to sustain him. So the vantage point reverts to man's functions within the Garden.

Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

Now th function of the animals was to be as helpers and companions to man and so man, to be his pets so to speak and so God asked Adam to name them.

However Adam was still lonely for he required the companion of a similar being like himself, so what does God do?

But for Adamf no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

So th women comes in play as the functional companion of Adam.

So from all these concrete functional writing structures we see no focus on chronology at all. The main focus is function of object in relation to another object and the vantage point changes from the perspective of the story of the object. This is why when the vantage point changes from animals mentioned in Genesis 1 to man in Genesis 2 the object is brought forward as a reference to all the other objects, who one are made subjects to the referenced object. In the case of Genesis 1 the plant life and the land was made subjects to the animal life and in Genesis 2 the animals and the plant life became subjects to man.

So Gen 1 and 2 are by no means contradictory, it just was the way those ancient peoples used language that convey their life story. Notice also another pertinent point is that the author never uses adjectives to describe the appearance of Adam, the Garden, the animals or even the names of the animals in particular, rather he is more object functionally focussed on the relationship of one objects functions to another in the hierarchy chain. Obviously man in Genesis 2 was elevated to the top hierarchy in the chain and the authority made him the first created or first born, that is most favoured and blessed and was given dominion over all animal and plant life.

If you force our abstract language on their way of communication, we manufacture our own contradiction. This off course is not the problem of t author, but is our problem that we create in the way we misread the authors object oriented functional scrip within the ecosystem life chain.

 

[Berean777]

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. Very deep thought. Here is my response,

In the Genesis account, the presence of Jesus Christ is not evident in the coming forth of the existence of light itself, but rather, in the speech that brought it forth into existence. Why do you think John calls him the "Word"? Word means speech. Look up the greek word, "logos". Its usage throughout scripture is synonymous with speaking, talking. So in the very utterance of "let there be light", is Jesus himself made known to us in the Genesis account. And what was his first utterance? He brought forth light into existence. So he is himself, the source of light. Because he brought it forth into existence. In him was also life, because on account of his utterance in Genesis was man made as well. I have an interesting thing I posted on the Genesis account here that you might find interesting, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/

Let there be LIGHT has a dual meaning, that is the creator is making his presence be known and at the same time his Spiritual presence resides over the waters of the deep, life comes forth from him and He kick starts Genesis.

The Living Word is the living consciousness that is the very utterance, meaning that he is the INFINITE being who is the source of all life before he even manifested himself within his creation as the Angel of Yahweh's presence" or "as Jesus of Nazareth".

In essence he is presenting himself as the source of all life when there was nothingness, a void and darkness and absence of any cosmic material quantity. Now you may disagree with me on this point but his consciousness transcends time and space before he even resided over his creation, when he uttered the words LET THERE BE LIGHT".

Jesus clears this up in......

John 17:5
Now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared before the world began.

There is definitively the conscious existence of the Living Word before anything came into being.

You mentioned in one post that the Father created the Son and then through the Son created the world. This would imply that through a created being God the Father created other creatures. This would be uncharacteristic of the God of the Bible to use another creature to create another and if you look at this definition it would be more procreating rather than creating. This thought would be preposterous to say the least.

That is why The Living a Word is the very bosom/heart of the Father who with the Father and being of the same substance/being of the Father has done this.

A creature cannot create and it would be against the Creator's prerogative to have another creature to create on his behalf as you have wrongly suggested.

Think and reflect on what I have said and understand that the Creator doesn't delegate his Creator role. This means that the Living Word who is the Son's conscious persona/personality within the one/substance, is the one Creator who is the one God.

We have one God being/substance within him three distinct persona's that qualify his motive and decisions according to his one mind and his one will.

 

[Wgw]

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. Very deep thought. Here is my response,

In the Genesis account, the presence of Jesus Christ is not evident in the coming forth of the existence of light itself, but rather, in the speech that brought it forth into existence. Why do you think John calls him the "Word"? Word means speech. Look up the greek word, "logos". Its usage throughout scripture is synonymous with speaking, talking. So in the very utterance of "let there be light", is Jesus himself made known to us in the Genesis account. And what was his first utterance? He brought forth light into existence. So he is himself, the source of light. Because he brought it forth into existence. In him was also life, because on account of his utterance in Genesis was man made as well. I have an interesting thing I posted on the Genesis account here that you might find interesting, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/

This would be compelling were it not directly contradicted by John 1:1-2.