Salvation and the Trinity

[Jpark]

I think the problem here is that 2ducklow does not believe that Jesus is God. Imo, instead of trying to get him to accept Trinity, you Trinitarians should try to get him to accept that Jesus is God.

 

[Albion]

I think the problem here is that 2ducklow does not believe that Jesus is God. Imo, instead of trying to get him to accept Trinity, you Trinitarians should try to get him to accept that Jesus is God.

It's a good thought, but his #1 topic seems to be opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, leading me to doubt if he'd be interested in refocusiing on the divine nature of Christ. It's much easier to deny the Trinity than Christ as God, so I wonder if that consideration alone would not suggest to him that he continue as before. Besides which, if he thinks there is nothing to the doctrine of the Trinity, it won't do us much good to try to prove one part of that, leaving him to think that his objections to the Trinity as such are unassailable. As for trying to get him to accept the Trinity, no, I never have had that in mind. I don't make it a point to change anyone's faith, just to discuss the facts.

 

[2ducklow]

It's a good thought, but his #1 topic seems to be opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, leading me to doubt if he'd be interested in refocusiing on the divine nature of Christ. It's much easier to deny the Trinity than Christ as God, so I wonder if that consideration alone would not suggest to him that he continue as before. Besides which, if he thinks there is nothing to the doctrine of the Trinity, it won't do us much good to try to prove one part of that, leaving him to think that his objections to the Trinity as such are unassailable. As for trying to get him to accept the Trinity, no, I never have had that in mind. I don't make it a point to change anyone's faith, just to discuss the facts.

And the fact is no scripture says Jesus is God, lots of scriptures say jesus is the son of God,ergo he cannot be god since he is gods son and no scripture says Jesus is god.

 

[2ducklow]

Seems to me that I said the exact opposite of that.


I didn't say that "trinity is everywhere in the scripture." I said that there are scriptural evidences of the Trinity in many verses.

I was being hyperbolic.I didn't bother to look back and see exactly what you said, i just responded from memory. no biggie.

Sure, you can say that. In fact, I said explicitly that "you are entitled to that opinion."

yes you did, then you did an about face and insinuated that someone who doeson't believe in the trinity isn't saved with a statement something to the effect that it's impossible to believe in Jesus and not believe in the trinity. you might have just as well said trinity isn't and is necessary for salvation. For you in effect coverd all the bases.

And I said that you are entitled to hold that opinion. I don't agree that it's based upon a correct reading of scripture, however.


I believe we are justified by faith in Christ (even if we have a wrong interpretation of some of God's word). Obviously, I'd say, if a person doesn't know who Christ is, that would raise doubts about his having faith in Christ.

you are insinuating with your last sentence that if a person doesn't believe that christ is god or part of a trinity he isn't saved. though you will probably deny it. It's obvious you didn't mean that someone who believes Jesus is the christ the son of god and mary knows who Jesus is.

 

[2ducklow]

I think the problem here is that 2ducklow does not believe that Jesus is God. Imo, instead of trying to get him to accept Trinity, you Trinitarians should try to get him to accept that Jesus is God.

no the problem is that the bible doesn't say Jesus is god, you do.

 

[2ducklow]

If you compare the trinity to water it makes much more sense. Three unique persons that are still God. Just like ice, liquid, and water vapor are still the same element of water. If you can't believe that Jesus is God, that is a very real issue (as commented above).

like 10 horses in a hard or 3 parts of an egg right?
so you got one body of liguid water, another body of ice water, and one more body of steam water. That's 3 bodys of water and equates to 3 gods, not one. 10 horses are 10 horses, and a horse is not a herd,

By answering this way, Jesus was proclaiming himself to be God.



When Jesus was baptized, the Spirit of God came and rested on him.

no way. that's your proof that Jesus is god? mighty lame, mighty mightly lame. Jesus says he is the son of god so proof positive he is god? unfathomably lame. why don't you quote some scripture that says "Jesus is God"? Cause there ain't none. every proof that Jesus is god is lame like yours cause you guys have no scripturual support for your doctrine.

 

[Aibrean]

If you don't believe Jesus is God you might as well throw away your Bible.

 

[2ducklow]

If you don't believe Jesus is God you might as well throw away your Bible.

you quote Jesus saying not to tempt god as proof that Jesus is god, and you quote a spurious version of john `1.18, and accuse me of throwing away my bible cause you can't come up with a scripture that says Jesus is god. you have no proof. I can prove from scripture that God the Father is the one and only real or true god, it's what scripture says. you have no similar or anywhere close scripture syaing Jesus is god.

all your proofs are no proofs or spurious scriptures like johh 1.18. here's what most bibles translate john 1.18 to say.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.\


every scripture used to prove that Jesus is god has been tampered with by trinitarians to try and make it say Jesus is god. john 1.18 is no exception. It's the rule. or very faulty logic like your saying Jesus says not to tempt the Lord your god so that proves Jesus is god. Far out, i mean really far far out.

 

[Aibrean]

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John 3:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


If the Word = God
If the Word = Jesus
Then Jesus = God

 

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by hybrid

And I said that you are entitled to hold that opinion. I don't agree that it's based upon a correct reading of scripture, however.

I believe we are justified by faith in Christ (even if we have a wrong interpretation of some of God's word). Obviously, I'd say, if a person doesn't know who Christ is, that would raise doubts about his having faith in Christ.​

you are insinuating with your last sentence that if a person doesn't believe that christ is god or part of a trinity he isn't saved. though you will probably deny it. It's obvious you didn't mean that someone who believes Jesus is the christ the son of god and mary knows who Jesus is.

you erroneously credited the posts to me. the post to which you replied belongs to albion.

.
​

 

[hybrid]

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John 3:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


If the Word = God
If the Word = Jesus
Then Jesus = God

i'll buy that! LOL

.

 

[Der Alte]

you quote Jesus saying not to tempt god as proof that Jesus is god, and you quote a spurious version of john `1.18, and accuse me of throwing away my bible cause you can't come up with a scripture that says Jesus is god. you have no proof. I can prove from scripture that God the Father is the one and only real or true god, it's what scripture says. you have no similar or anywhere close scripture syaing Jesus is god.

all your proofs are no proofs or spurious scriptures like johh 1.18. here's what most bibles translate john 1.18 to say.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.\

every scripture used to prove that Jesus is god has been tampered with by trinitarians to try and make it say Jesus is god. john 1.18 is no exception. It's the rule. or very faulty logic like your saying Jesus says not to tempt the Lord your god so that proves Jesus is god. Far out, i mean really far far out.

A. T. Robertson Word Pictures.
The only begotten Son (ho monogenēs huios). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh_1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh_1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh_1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs.

Vincent Word Studies
The only begotten son (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός)

Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς θεός, “God only begotten.”
Another and minor difference in reading relates to the article, which is omitted from μονογενὴς by most of the authorities which favor θεός. Whether we read the only begotten Son, or God only begotten, the sense of the passage is not affected. The latter reading merely combines in one phrase the two attributes of the word already indicated - God (Joh_1:1), only begotten (Joh_1:14); the sense being one who was both God and only begotten.

NET Translation Notes 45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.​

 

[2ducklow]

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John 3:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


If the Word = God
If the Word = Jesus
Then Jesus = God

Jesus isn't literally the word of God, or a door, or a loaf of bread or a good shepard, he is figuratively alll those things.Every time the word of god is mentioned in the bible everyone knows it'sthe written or oral word of god EXCEPT in john 1.1, then suddenly the word becomes lietaly a fleshly man and not the written or oral word of god. go figure.

 

[hybrid]

in short, the son of god is god, and not some second rate saviour.

 

[2ducklow]

you erroneously credited the posts to me. the post to which you replied belongs to albion.

.
​

I did not. my post #38 you quoted says its from albion, you changed it to hybrid.

 

[hybrid]

I did not. my post #38 you quoted says its from albion, you changed it to hybrid.

i was referring to your post # 44

 

[hybrid]

Jesus isn't literally the word of God, or a door, or a loaf of bread or a good shepard, he is figuratively all those things.Every time the word of god is mentioned in the bible everyone knows it'sthe written or oral word of god EXCEPT in john 1.1, then suddenly the word becomes lietaly a fleshly man and not the written or oral word of god. go figure.

so the word of god is not literally god and then took a human form.?
to you the word of god are just ideas originated from god since the oral and written words are just symbolic letters and sounds (phonetics} expressions of ideas, right?

so jesus as the son of god is a figure of speech whose meaning is a human being perfectly representing the ideals of god? is this the nutshell of your beliefs and the meaning of pure non spurious scriptures to you?

.

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus isn't literally the word of God, or a door, or a loaf of bread or a good shepard, he is figuratively all those things.Every time the word of god is mentioned in the bible everyone knows it'sthe written or oral word of god EXCEPT in john 1.1, then suddenly the word becomes lietaly a fleshly man and not the written or oral word of god. go figure.

so the word of god is not literally god and then took a human form.?
to you the word of god are just ideas originated from god since the oral and written words are just symbolic letters and sounds (phonetics} expressions of ideas, right?
so jesus as the son of god is a figure of speech whose meaning is a human being perfectly representing the ideals of god? is this the nutshell of your beliefs and the meaning of pure non spurious scriptures to you?

John was a simple Jewish fisherman, not a Greek philosopher, therefore his understanding of God and the Word, would be Jewish, not Greek.

Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.” מאמר/memra which in Aramaic means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.

In this citation, which is only representative not comprehensive, there are at least eighty examples where the name יהוה/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” מאמר/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new.

Remember this is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars showing the faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews.

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand " (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).

JewishEncyclopedia.com - MEMRA​

Some interesting quotes from the above article, all from the Targums, before the Christian era, note the parallels with the N.T., here.

Targum "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

NT Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

Targum So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): cf. John 14:26, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

NT Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another [of the same kind] Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Targum "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). cf. Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

NT Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Targum "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). cf. Luke 21:27, 28, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

NT Luk 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.​

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho the Jew [110-165 AD]

The sun was risen upon the earth; and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar). And the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; and He overthrew these cities, and all the neighbourhood.' "200 And after another pause I added: "And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: `The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.' "

Chapter CXXIX.-That is Confirmed from Other Passages of Scripture.
"And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, 'The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven, 'the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Origen Against Celsus Book 1[185-254 AD]

And as it is a Jew who is perplexed about the account of the Holy Spirit having descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, we would say to him, “Sir, who is it that says in Isaiah, ‘And now the Lord hath sent me and His spirit?’” In which sentence, as the meaning is doubtful — viz., whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit — the latter is correct For, because the Savior was sent, afterwards the Holy Spirit was sent also, that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled; and as it was necessary that the fulfillment of the prophecy should be known to posterity, the disciples of Jesus for that reason committed the result to writing.​

 

[Albion]

Sure, you can say that. In fact, I said explicitly that "you are entitled to that opinion."

yes you did, then you did an about face and insinuated that someone who doeson't believe in the trinity isn't saved with a statement something to the effect that it's impossible to believe in Jesus and not believe in the trinity.

Once again, you are relying upon a hasty reading or it's that you were lying in wait expecting something to be said to you which, whether or not it actually was said, is what you want to reply to.

Not only did I say that you are entitled to your opinion--which doesn't mean I have to agree to it in order to respect your POV--but I didn't say that if one doesn't believe in the Trinity, he cannot be saved. I took care, in fact, not to say that. And I didn't say anything even close to "It's impossible to believe in Jesus and not believe in the Trinity."

you are insinuating with your last sentence that if a person doesn't believe that christ is god or part of a trinity he isn't saved.

Let me correct you. You are "inferring" from what I wrote. I didn't "insinutate" anything of the sort.

It's obvious you....

And the fact is no scripture says Jesus is God, lots of scriptures say jesus is the son of God,ergo he cannot be god since he is gods son and no scripture says Jesus is god.

Aibrean has already covered the most famous verse of that sort. In addition, we have Romans 5:9 and Jesus accepting Thomas' proclamaintion that he was Lord and God. Then we have the use of the divine term for himself (I AM) which caused the Jews to accuse him of blasphemy. And the various places in scripture (Sermon on the Mount, for instance) where Jesus purports to have the powers that only God can have--to forgive sins, etc. Three Gospels record Jesus as calling himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," a clear reference to God. He calls himself the judge of all men, although the Bible teaches that God alone judges, not some delegate. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record him as being eternal, with the Father from everlasting--which no created being, no being other than God, can be. He claims to be equal to the Father, which no created being could be. And that's only the beginning of it.

The proofs are many, but you have already insultated yourself against all of them by use of that one reply--the Bible translations everyone but you use are "spurious," mistranslated, or inaccurate.

 

[2ducklow]

so the word of god is not literally god and then took a human form.?

The word of God is not literally God, God is not the words he speaks. God's words did not literally take a human form.

to you the word of god are just ideas originated from god since the oral and written words are just symbolic letters and sounds (phonetics} expressions of ideas, right?

The word of God is what God says. it doesn't matter if God instructs someone to write it down or not, whatever he says is the word of god.

so jesus as the son of god is a figure of speech whose meaning is a human being perfectly representing the ideals of god?

Jesus is the literal son of god, begotten literally by God and conceived literally by Mary. Your trying to twist my beliefs into nonsense it won't work.

is this the nutshell of your beliefs and the meaning of pure non spurious scriptures to you?

.

Anytime you have two readings of a scripture in the Greek NT one of them has to be spurious. In the case of john 1.18 there are 2 readings "only begotten god" and "only begotten son" . I could give you the reasons why I believe "only begotten son" is the orignalt word of God, I could also give you the reasons people believe 'only begottn god'' is the correct reading, but either way there is doubt, so to say Jesus is God based on a sripture that has evidence both ways makes the doctrine unsound. Example, If i were to say that Jesus is the only begotten son of god becaue John 1.18 says he is, well that would be no proof because there is an alternate reading, however if i was to say that Jesus is the only begotten son because john 3.16 says he is, that would be a sound doctrinal support because there are no alternate readings on john 3.16 relevant to 'only begotten son'. If you had another scripture besides John 1.18 saying that Jesus is the only begotten God that was undisbuted in the Greek NT manuscripts, then you would have a more sound case from the scriptures, and if you had 5 or 6 undisputed scripturees saying that you would then have a rock solid foun dation. but you don't. you only have one scripture that has been monkeyed with by someone. See my point?

The same reasoning applys to numerous scriptures that are used to support trinty/Jesus is god.

P.s. I went back and changed hybrid to albion in post #44.