The Trinity

[razzelflabben]

John 1:1 can just as easily be translated "and the Word was a god", depends on one's theological leanings. And no, I'm not Jehovah Witness.

actually, to truly understand requires word study not theology but that too seems irrelevant to some on this thread.

 

[str8_TALK]

John 1:1 can just as easily be translated "and the Word was a god", depends on one's theological leanings. And no, I'm not Jehovah Witness.

John is consistent in all of his writings throughout the New Testament. The prologue can only be understood when compared with all of his writings, which teach that Jesus is the Son of God, a person sent from and by God to do and speak His will, in accordance with the prophesy of Moses, Duet. 18:18. When scripture is rightly divided (harmonized together) the truth is evident.

"In the beginning God SAID, 'Let there be light'", etc. Gen. 1

"In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word (logos) was with God, and the word (logos) was God." John 1:1

The world was created by the breath of His mouth, Ps. 33:6. He spoke and it was. Ps. 33:9

God created by speaking al things into existence (God's logos/word). So, the word/logos of John 1:1 is not a person. It's the spoken word of God. The word "word/logos" is used throughout John's writings and never means a person in one instance.

The harmony of scripture tells us that the Greek word, “logos”, is the tangible spoken word that reflects the rational; a person’s mind, reason, thoughts, plan, intellect, and motives. When we speak, our voice goes out from us and our silent thoughts become audible. They reflect our intangible thoughts and reasoning powers. The root of “logos” is “to speak”. Speaking is an outward projection of our thoughts. The word of a person has no personality beyond the personality of the person whose word it is.

The word/logos of God became flesh in that the flesh and blood person, Jesus Christ, did and spoke what the Father commanded him, thus representing God expressly, just as Duet. 18:18 indicated he would.

I Timothy 6:14-16 all by itself is the glaring fact that ONLY God the Father has inherent immortality:

Jesus Christ will show (>), “… Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the KING of kings, and LORD of Lords; Who ONLY has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to Whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.” I Tim. 6:14-16

Jesus' purpose was to represent the Father expressly and to be the vehicle of redemption for mankind. Jesus could bleed and die. Jesus could take on the sins of the world. God is spirit and He is light. He cannot interface with sin and darkness, but his messengers can speak for Him and represent Him, a thing that Jesus Christ, servant of God, did. (Acts 3:26, Heb 1:1)

 

[razzelflabben]

John is consistent in all of his writings throughout the New Testament. The prologue can only be understood when compared with all of his writings, which teach that Jesus is the Son of God, a person sent from and by God to do and speak His will, in accordance with the prophesy of Moses, Duet. 18:18. When scripture is rightly divided (harmonized together) the truth is evident.

"In the beginning God SAID, 'Let there be light'", etc. Gen. 1

"In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word (logos) was with God, and the word (logos) was God." John 1:1

The world was created by the breath of His mouth, Ps. 33:6. He spoke and it was. Ps. 33:9

God created by speaking al things into existence (God's logos/word). So, the word/logos of John 1:1 is not a person. It's the spoken word of God. The word "word/logos" is used throughout John's writings and never means a person in one instance.

The harmony of scripture tells us that the Greek word, “logos”, is the tangible spoken word that reflects the rational; a person’s mind, reason, thoughts, plan, intellect, and motives. When we speak, our voice goes out from us and our silent thoughts become audible. They reflect our intangible thoughts and reasoning powers. The root of “logos” is “to speak”. Speaking is an outward projection of our thoughts. The word of a person has no personality beyond the personality of the person whose word it is.

The word/logos of God became flesh in that the flesh and blood person, Jesus Christ, did and spoke what the Father commanded him, thus representing God expressly, just as Duet. 18:18 indicated he would.

I Timothy 6:14-16 all by itself is the glaring fact that ONLY God the Father has inherent immortality:

Jesus Christ will show (>), “… Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the KING of kings, and LORD of Lords; Who ONLY has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to Whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.” I Tim. 6:14-16

Jesus' purpose was to represent the Father expressly and to be the vehicle of redemption for mankind. Jesus could bleed and die. Jesus could take on the sins of the world. God is spirit and He is light. He cannot interface with sin and darkness, but his messengers can speak for Him and represent Him, a thing that Jesus Christ, servant of God, did. (Acts 3:26, Heb 1:1)

was in a discussion once with a guy that took the none trinity approach that some here take, in order to go there, he found it necessary to dismiss several entire books of the bible because keeping them he couldn't hold what he was saying. At least you all haven't gone down that road at this time...bravo (no sarcasm) that is a huge progress on the topic.

 

[justlookinla]

John is consistent in all of his writings throughout the New Testament. The prologue can only be understood when compared with all of his writings, which teach that Jesus is the Son of God, a person sent from and by God to do and speak His will, in accordance with the prophesy of Moses, Duet. 18:18. When scripture is rightly divided (harmonized together) the truth is evident.

One can hold the view that Jesus is the Son of God and He not be God though.

"In the beginning God SAID, 'Let there be light'", etc. Gen. 1

"In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word (logos) was with God, and the word (logos) was God." John 1:1

The world was created by the breath of His mouth, Ps. 33:6. He spoke and it was. Ps. 33:9

God created by speaking al things into existence (God's logos/word). So, the word/logos of John 1:1 is not a person. It's the spoken word of God. The word "word/logos" is used throughout John's writings and never means a person in one instance.

The harmony of scripture tells us that the Greek word, “logos”, is the tangible spoken word that reflects the rational; a person’s mind, reason, thoughts, plan, intellect, and motives. When we speak, our voice goes out from us and our silent thoughts become audible. They reflect our intangible thoughts and reasoning powers. The root of “logos” is “to speak”. Speaking is an outward projection of our thoughts. The word of a person has no personality beyond the personality of the person whose word it is.

The word/logos of God became flesh in that the flesh and blood person, Jesus Christ, did and spoke what the Father commanded him, thus representing God expressly, just as Duet. 18:18 indicated he would.

I Timothy 6:14-16 all by itself is the glaring fact that ONLY God the Father has inherent immortality:

Jesus Christ will show (>), “… Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the KING of kings, and LORD of Lords; Who ONLY has immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to Whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.” I Tim. 6:14-16

Jesus' purpose was to represent the Father expressly and to be the vehicle of redemption for mankind. Jesus could bleed and die. Jesus could take on the sins of the world. God is spirit and He is light. He cannot interface with sin and darkness, but his messengers can speak for Him and represent Him, a thing that Jesus Christ, servant of God, did. (Acts 3:26, Heb 1:1)

I don't disagree.

 

[razzelflabben]

One can hold the view that Jesus is the Son of God and He not be God though.



I don't disagree.

my personal problem is that 1. this does not show a totality of scripture, only an ability to dismiss the totality and 2. it requires us to ignore all the passages that tell us that Jesus is God in the flesh. Just saying, that is my personal issue with this interpretation.

 

[str8_TALK]

razzel, agree that all scripture needs to be harmonized and taken into consideration when studying for the truth.

justlookin, right ... which is why I believe Jesus is who the Bible says he is ... the Son of God.

 

[justlookinla]

my personal problem is that 1. this does not show a totality of scripture, only an ability to dismiss the totality and 2. it requires us to ignore all the passages that tell us that Jesus is God in the flesh. Just saying, that is my personal issue with this interpretation.

Scripture indicates that Jesus is the express image of God, but never God as in God the Father. Jesus would not be 'God' without His God and Father, but His God and Father would be God without Jesus.

 

[justlookinla]

razzel, agree that all scripture needs to be harmonized and taken into consideration when studying for the truth.

justlookin, right ... which is why I believe Jesus is who the Bible says he is ... the Son of God.

And, the term "Son of God" suggests that He proceeded from God, not God from Him.

 

[razzelflabben]

Scripture indicates that Jesus is the express image of God, but never God as in God the Father. Jesus would not be 'God' without His God and Father, but His God and Father would be God without Jesus.

now I am confused...why would Jesus have to be the Father and/or the HS to be God? That would mean that the Father would have to be both Son and HS and the HS would have to be both Son and Father and then that would remove the one of God...so I don't even know what you are trying to get at. The FAther, the Son, the HS all make up but ONE God...but each is uniquely different as well.

 

[razzelflabben]

And, the term "Son of God" suggests that He proceeded from God, not God from Him.

Now, you are talking about God proceeding from Jesus...where are you even getting this stuff and why attribute it to trinity belief when they are no where close to what trinity teaches? Seriously, I don't get why some here think that if they change trinity belief it somehow magically makes God less triune.

 

[justlookinla]

now I am confused...why would Jesus have to be the Father and/or the HS to be God? That would mean that the Father would have to be both Son and HS and the HS would have to be both Son and Father and then that would remove the one of God...so I don't even know what you are trying to get at. The FAther, the Son, the HS all make up but ONE God...but each is uniquely different as well.

I'm simply saying that the Son would not exist without the Father, but the Father would exist without the Son. The Son doesn't have to be God, but the Father does have to be God. God did not proceed forth from God, for example, but the Son did proceed from the Father.

 

[justlookinla]

Now, you are talking about God proceeding from Jesus...where are you even getting this stuff and why attribute it to trinity belief when they are no where close to what trinity teaches? Seriously, I don't get why some here think that if they change trinity belief it somehow magically makes God less triune.

No, I'm talking about Jesus proceeding from God.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm simply saying that the Son would not exist without the Father, but the Father would exist without the Son. The Son doesn't have to be God, but the Father does have to be God. God did not proceed forth from God, for example, but the Son did proceed from the Father.

The Son does have to be God because that is what scripture says...but then again, when that is pointed out, it is ignored or excused away without the totality of scripture, so not on the table I guess...

 

[razzelflabben]

No, I'm talking about Jesus proceeding from God.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.

Your quote said it both ways which is what I pointed out...pretending it wasn't there does nothing to make your case.

 

[donfish06]

So, basically, neither of the terms or phrases, "God the Son" nor "God in the flesh", are terms of scripture, but rather extra-biblical mantras. My question was to those who use these terms to show any place in all of scripture where they are used. No one could show an instance. Why should we use terminology that God does not use?

So, basically, GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN FLESH doesn't mean anything?

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory

 

[justlookinla]

The Son does have to be God because that is what scripture says...but then again, when that is pointed out, it is ignored or excused away without the totality of scripture, so not on the table I guess...

That's the interpretation some have of scripture. But, for Jesus to be God, God would have to produce God, something scripture doesn't indicate.

 

[justlookinla]

Your quote said it both ways which is what I pointed out...pretending it wasn't there does nothing to make your case.

The case the scripture is making is that someone/something proceeded from God. Scripture isn't indicating that God proceeded from God, but that the Son of God proceeded from God.

 

[donfish06]

I'm simply saying that the Son would not exist without the Father, but the Father would exist without the Son. The Son doesn't have to be God, but the Father does have to be God. God did not proceed forth from God, for example, but the Son did proceed from the Father.

If a dog has a "son", what would it be? A Dog.
If a cat has offspring they are cats.
God set forth a precedent that everything brings forth AFTER ITS OWN KIND.
SO, if GOD has a son, He HAS to be GOD. Quit changing the meaning of words

 

[razzelflabben]

That's the interpretation some have of scripture. But, for Jesus to be God, God would have to produce God, something scripture doesn't indicate.

or...as scripture says and the post right above this one pointed out, God Himself came to earth by clothing Himself in the flesh of a human and giving Himself the name of Jesus so that by that name we would know to associate the humility of His suffering and death for our sins with who God is at the core of His being....just saying, there are other explanations than you offer here, like the one offered in scripture for example.

 

[justlookinla]

If a dog has a "son", what would it be? A Dog.
If a cat has offspring they are cats.
God set forth a precedent that everything brings forth AFTER ITS OWN KIND.
SO, if GOD has a son, He HAS to be GOD. Quit changing the meaning of words

No, He doesn't have to be God no more than Adam had to be God. The Father always exists before a Son and can and does exist without having a Son. A Son cannot exist without a Father. The Son isn't the Father and the Father isn't the Son