Trinity found in Bible or not?

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #56 (Current Response)
Post #20

The next argument presented stated the following.

You are quite prejudiced against Church and the teachings of Church in the steps of Christ due to actions of man. Arius' death is documented, noone defecates their insides out because they were assassinated. But you are very likely to accept that idea because it supports your opinions and views.

Please go ahead and start a thread about early Christianity. Do so in an appropriate venue, such as Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic forums ...

More information regarding the death of Arius.

He was formally recalled from banishment; and all the chiefs of the Eusebian party were assembled in Constantinople to receive him back into the bosom of the church, when he suddenly died the day before the solemnity (336), at the age of over eighty years, at a time and in a manner that seemed to the orthodox party to be a direct interposition of Providence, and a condemnation of his doctrine; while his friends attributed the death to poison. Athanasius relates the fact in a letter to Serapion, on the authority of a priest, Macarius of Constantinople (De Morte Arii, Opera, ed. Bened. torn. I., pp. 1., 340), and ventures to interpret Providence in the uncharitable style of his age, yet not without some reluctance of his better Christian feeling Epiphanius (Haer. 68, c. 7) compares his death to that of Judas the traitor. Socrates (Hist. Eccl. I., 38) gives the following account: "Going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, Arius paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. On approaching the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror, arising from the consciousness of his wickedness, seized him, accompanied by a violent relaxation of the bowels. He therefore inquired whether there was a convenient place near, and, being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after, a faintness came over him, and, together with the evacuations, his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines. More over, portions of his spleen and liver were carried off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died." Sozomen (H. E., II., 30) gives a similar account, and adds, that, for a long period, everybody avoided with horror the spot on which Arias died, until a rich Arian bought the place of the public, and built a house on the site, that there might be no perpetual memorial of his death.

Source of Quotation.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism.php

Alexander was in dire perplexity. He dared not disobey the command, neither dare he obey it. In his extremity he asked the prayers of the Orthodox that either he or Arius might be removed from the world before the latter was admitted to communion. The prayer was, the very reverend Henry Wace notes, a strange one. Meanwhile Arius was ordered to appear before the Emperor, and asked whether he was willing to sign the Nicaene decrees. He replied, without hesitation, that he was ready to do so. And yet, the very day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius died suddenly, and in a most remarkable manner, as Socrates Scholasticus (c380 - c450 A.D.), whose account was written nearly a century after Arius’ death, describes:

Source of Quotation.
http://arian-catholic.org/arian/arius.html

The nature of Arius’ death was so violent that it begs the questions: Was Arius murdered? After struggling against the Orthodox church for sixteen years, did Arius really acknowledge the Nicene (Nicaean) decrees so readily? The description of his death would suggest that he had probably been given a powerful poison in a slow dissolving form with some food and drink while being in audience with the Emperor, this would produce the delayed and most devastating end (a method of poisoning perfected by the Romans), and would have given the impression of Divine retribution while at the same time destroying any chances of Arius becoming a Martyr. If God was going to punish Arius for heresy, then on the one hand surely he would have struck him down sooner before Arianism had drawn more followers throughout Europe than the Orthodox church! And on the other hand, why strike him down at all? God’s judgement and punishment is meted out on Judgement Day, which calls into question such an extraordinary death. Had he been suffering from a severe cancer then he would have been gravely ill and incapacitated in the months before his death, however all reports suggest that Arius was in good health earlier that day before suddenly being taken ill on his departure from the Imperial Palace. History is written by its victors!
After fighting the trinitarians for over 15 years with such conviction, great success and popularity, and winning the argument against the attempt to compromise through Semi-Arianism, and had stood up to the Nicaeans as well as the Emperor of Rome; it is wholly out of character and illogical that Arius would simply turn into a coward and betrayer on a whim! It is a fact that Arius was lured to the Imperial Palace having received assurances of being back in Emperor Constantine’s favour. The account that then followed is simply propaganda by the Roman Catholics purely to attempt to embarrass Arius’ reputation and infer divine retribution. The fact was that Arius was an 80 year old man who was tricked by Constantine I (who knows what Arius was subjected to behind the closed doors of the Imperial Palace?), by his extremely violent death he was certainly the victim of poisoning, a very common and well practiced method used by the murderous Pagan Romans. Arius died a martyr and was venerated in central and eastern Europe for over 250 years, his legacy has been ever profound in Christianity.
The extraordinary death of Arius, at the age of 80 years, followed as it was a year later by that of Constantine himself, led to a temporary lull in the controversy. However although Arians were driven from the Empire and executed for heresy, Arianism continued to retain a foothold among the Teutons for another 160 years and other peoples for another 250 years until the annihilation or conversion to Roman Catholicism of peoples such as the Franks in 496 AD and the Visigoths in 586 AD.​

Source of Quotation.
http://arian-catholic.org/arian/arius.html

The justice or miraculous nature of Arius' death is not the subject of history, but the extraordinary death of Arius, followed as it was a year later by that of Constantine himself, led to a temporary lull in the controversy.

Source of Quotation.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/arius.htm

The notion of being poisoned was immediately cited as a possible cause of death. The violent account of his death is also described here, but notice this account started one year after the death had occurred, from the lips of Constantine no less. Then a historian comments on a death he himself did not witness, not convincing. Stating that Arius could have been poisoned is not merely fabricated out of thin air. Friend or not of Arius, the details speak for themselves.

1. Arius was 80 years olds - An easy frail target.

2. Assassination by means of poisoning was common - A probable weapon

3. Constantine disliked Arius and his views on Christ - A motive

4. Arius was invited back - An opportunity

I have nothing more to say on this topic.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Note that HIS FRIENDS say that! What else did you logically EXPECT? You can't evaluate evidence at hand due to your unreasonable preconceived judgments and convictions, my friend, maybe you should take a break from this ambition for a while and approach more objectively in an appropriate venue. May I ask you credentials while you commit this historical criticism of the early Church accounts -includes Scriptures- ?

 

[Apodictic]

Line Status
Post #62 (Current Response)
Post #20

The next argument presented stated the following.

Note that HIS FRIENDS say that! What else did you logically EXPECT? You can't evaluate evidence at hand due to your unreasonable preconceived judgments and convictions, my friend, maybe you should take a break from this ambition for a while and approach more objectively in an appropriate venue. May I ask you credentials while you commit this historical criticism of the early Church accounts -includes Scriptures- ?

The same argument can be used to respond to the account given by his enemies: They said his death was due to divine intervention because they did not like him. Of course, this argument is not sound or convincing for either side. The evidence supplied above, however, can be convincing depending on how we are willing to formulate our views.

Do not make the mistake of thinking I have always been a disbeliever of the trinity concept. I like many other Christians have been taught this concept, as it is widespread in today's world. For a time in my life, I accepted it as do many Christians. But through investigation I have come to believe otherwise.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The notion of being poisoned was immediately cited as a possible cause of death.

Your concrete evidence? You are claiming something, let's see some support!

Then a historian comments on a death he himself did not witness, not convincing.

You demonstrated that you favor other historical elements that was written in the same manner, that is called hypocrisy.

Stating that Arius could have been poisoned is not merely fabricated out of thin air. Friend or not of Arius, the details speak for themselves.

Shall we see?

1. Arius was 80 years olds - An easy frail target.

Proves nothing!

2. Assassination by means of poisoning was common - A probable weapon

A state charge would have been much more effective, at least a government still ruled over citizens.

3. Constantine disliked Arius and his views on Christ - A motive

Wrong! Constantine was baptized by an Arian priest (Eusebius) on his death bed and grew fond of Arianism. Sympathy to Arianism in Constantine's views is a documented fact!

4. Arius was invited back - An opportunity

Given Constatine's favorism this was highly unlikely for the opportunity of murdering him. It doesn't add up with the exile of St. Athanasius and other Trinitarian Christian Fathers.

I have nothing more to say on this topic.

No, not from a historical point of view, other than quoting "Arian" websites. What else can we expect?

The same argument can be used to respond to the account given by his enemies:

Your account stated the claim of HIS FRIENDS. You have not said a thing about HIS ENEMIES. Are the other accounts detailing his death written by HIS ENEMIES for sure? You have proof of that?

They said his death was due to divine intervention because they did not like him.

Again, what is your evidence that these statements were made by those who were HIS ENEMIES?

Of course, this argument is not sound or convincing for either side. The evidence supplied above, however, can be convincing depending on how we are willing to formulate our views.

Great admission! Same rules apply when you criticize the doctrine of Holy Trinity.

Do not make the mistake of thinking I have always been a disbeliever of the trinity concept.

I really don't have any interest in what you are or what you were. Your subjectivity evaluating the historical evidence in these attempts of justifying your "new" belief is so apparent. One example is your distorted view of early Christian Church, taking it as a power hungry medieval Western political machine. You need to break some of your barriers before attempting an objective approach in this matter. Did I need to mention that I was a muslim, and a protestant before joining the Eastern Orthodox Church? I know how religion can be taken as a socio-political machine and I know the spirituality, Church's authority for mankind was never political. Or at least never meant to be. If you can not see this difference, or not willing to, I don't think I can be another element in your sarcastic pokings to early Christian Church.

I like many other Christians have been taught this concept, as it is widespread in today's world. For a time in my life, I accepted it as do many Christians. But through investigation I have come to believe otherwise.

What do you know better than the prosecuted early Christian Bishops?

 

[Apodictic]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, if we examine the verses in the Bible used to prove a trinity belief they fall into one of five general categories. Categories 2 and 3 can be further separated into sub-categories.

1. Those that attest to the divinity of the Father alone. (Need not be discussed, the Father is God, alone)

2. Those that attest to the divinity of Christ alone.
- Godly titles
- Godly deeds/actions

3. Those that attest to the divinity of the Holy Spirit alone.
-Godly titles
-Godly deeds/actions

4. Those that associate the three above mentioned.

5. Those that imply pluralism.

The last four categories are where the trinity believers draw their support. Let us examine each category one at a time.

(2) Verses attesting divinity of Christ alone

a) Godly Titles

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

This verse is grossly misunderstood because of the trinity biased translation.

John 1:1 (Corrected)
In the beginning was the Plan/Idea, and the Plan/Idea was with God, and the Plan/Idea was god/godly/divine. This was with God in the beginning.

The context of John chapter lends legitimacy to the above translation. The most important context is found in the following.

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

The only place in the immediate context that mentions Jesus is John 1:17. But instead of mentioning Jesus alone the verse also mentions Moses. That is because Moses is the "Word/Plan/Idea" too. The interpretation that Jesus alone is the "Word/Plan/Idea" does not fit the entire context of John Chapter 1.

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

The title "God" is given to Jesus by Thomas and Jesus does not correct him. The following explains why that is.

Thomas' confession is an acknowledgment that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, but it is not a declaration that Jesus is "God the Son". Thomas, a Jew, used a mode of expression common to the Old Testament in which accredited representatives of God are referred to as "God". Angels are called "God" in the following passages: Gen. 16:7 cf. vs. 13; 22:8, 11, 15 cf. vs. 16; Exod. 23:20, 21. Moses is referred to as a "god" to Pharaoh. (Exod. 7:1, "god" is translated from the Heb. "elohim"). "Elohim" translated "God" can refer to the judges of Israel as in Psa. 82:1, 6 cf. John 10:34. It is also translated "judges" in Exod. 21:6; 22:8, 9 and "gods" (mg. "judges") in Exod. 22:28.

Source of Quotation.
http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b08trinity/john20v28.html

Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

The english wording of this verse has been intentionally mixed up to imply that Jesus is God. A correct translation follows.

Titus 2:13 (Correct)
Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Source of correction.
http://scripturetext.com/titus/2-13.htm

The verse is mentioning two seperate people, Jesus and God.

A further argument against Godly titles given to anyone. Jesus himself said.

John 10:28-35
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jesus is correcting the Jews from thinking Jesus is claiming to be God almighty. His correction points out that others are called "god" in the OT. By bringing this point up to the Jews, Jesus is effectively saying I AM NOT GOD! This would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to declare otherwise, had Jesus believed himself to be God. This argument also rules out the Holy Spirit as being God for simply having "Godly titles". Yet, there are still verses about the Holy Spirit that involve deeds, which still need to be examined.

b) Godly Deeds

Colossians 1:15-20
He (The Son) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

The claim is that Jesus is the creator of all things and therefore is God.

The claim ignores two fundamental aspects of the context on this Scripture.

1. Jesus is referred to as "the image of the invisible God".

2. Jesus is said to be "the firstborn over all creation". And Jesus is said to be "the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead".

(1) The first point is a plain allusion to Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness [...]". The context then is supporting the idea that Jesus is a man, not God. It makes no sense to claim God is an image of God.

(2) The Greek word "πρωτοτοκος" is used here where we see the English word "firstborn" in both cases. The word can mean the following.

πρωτοτοκος adjective - nominative singular masculine
prototokos pro-tot-ok'-os: first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively) -- firstbegotten(-born).

http://scripturetext.com/colossians/1-18.htm

It means exactly what it says, the first born. Yet, it can be figurative or literal. In this case it is figuratively calling Jesus the first born as justified here.

Looking to the OT we see that being called firstborn does not mean it is literal.

1 Chronicles 5:1
The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (he was the firstborn, but when he defiled his father's marriage bed, his rights as firstborn were given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel; so he could not be listed in the genealogical record in accordance with his birthright

The same can be said of Jesus. Adam and Eve defiled themselves through their actions in the garden of Eden, therefore Jesus was exalted to the status of firstborn.

More important to the claim of the trinity, the attribute of firstborn means Jesus is not eternal. He is said to be the beginning, which denotes Jesus has a beginning.

John 5:27
And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

The claim is that Jesus has the authority of future judgment, therefore he is God.

This ignores a fundamental aspect of the context again. God does not need to be given anything, Jesus apparently does. Additionally, God is not a Son of Man.

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

The claim here is that Jesus is eternal, because he existed before the world began, therefore he is God.

The claim has no grounds of justifying the claim that Jesus is eternal based on what is stated here. Existing "before the world began" and always existing are different.

Another interesting aspect of this verse is the translation of the word "παρα".In John 17:5 it is translated as "with". The same word appears in John 1:6 "There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John." So the mistranslation of John 17:5 can be corrected as follows.

[QUOTE]John 17:5 (Corrected)
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had from you before the world began.[/quote]

Now the meaning of the verse is clear, the glory from God pre-existed the world, Jesus did not.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

The claim is that Jesus is omnipotent here, and therefore God.

Again the context does not allow for that conclusion. The idea of Jesus being a perfect image of God is again brought to light, just as it was in Colossians 1:15-20, but without a direct allusion this time. There is no question Jesus has an exalted position, but no where in the verse does it claim Jesus can do all things or has absolute power over all things.

Matthew 9:4
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

The claim is that this verse shows Jesus knows all things, therefore he is God.

This illogical conclusion has no Scriptural basis. It says Jesus knew their thoughts, which is hardly all things.

(3) Verses attesting divinity of the Holy Spirit alone

a) Godly Titles

Already refutted at the end of the Godly titles section for Jesus.

b) Godly Deeds

John 3:5-6
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

The claim is that the Spirit does what God can only do, give people a new spiritual life, therefore the Spirit is God.

If we accept the interpretation of the spirit, are we then going to accept that God did not create the flesh/body of a human. It states "flesh gives birth to flesh" and God is not flesh. The interpretation falls to pieces when the verse is interperted so literally and exclusively.

CONTINUED...

 

[Apodictic]

(4) Those that associate the three above mentioned

The idea of association is a common argument given by trinity supporters. Association alone does not support oneness. Additionally, some of the verses that state the association in the most clear forms have all been disputed for authenticity. Examples given below.

Matthew 28:19(Disputed)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 3:16-17
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

2 Corinthians 13:14
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

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

As I have shown Moses is part of the "Word". Even if we accept 1 John 5:7 as being authentic, it would imply Moses is part of the Godhead as well. Not a belief trinity believing Christians will readily accept. If this verse was later inserted, the inserter made a fundamental error. It would have been ironclad had the "Word" been "Son" instead.

(5) Those that imply pluralism

These verses are commonly cited from the OT making reference to the wording having a plural aspect when talking about God, as shown in the following passage.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

The pluralism argument is an afterthought by supporters of the trinity, seeking further justification in the OT for their belief. Any derivation of the trinity belief must come from the NT. The NT is the Scripture where this belief originated from. That is not to say the belief can not be argued in the OT, but the origin of the belief needs to remain true. That equally means that the OT can not be used to discredit the trinity belief. The OT can only be used for clarification, especially when the NT alludes to it.


Final Comments

Interestingly enough, the emphasis placed on Jesus being God is overwhelming. The claimed support verses for the Holy Spirit are limited, whereas the claimed support verses for Jesus are plentiful. I would expect more verses attesting to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, although this observation is irrelevant it is interesting.

God Bless!

 

[BereanTodd]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I just want to point this out in regards to Christ. Christ pointed multiple times to the fact that He and the Father constituted two distinct witnesses. If He and the Father are not distinct, then He lied, if He lied then He could not atone for our sins, in not atoning for our sins we are still lost.

The only way to get around at least a dualistic God (Father+Son) is to deny the deity of Christ, and that is clearly an unscriptural false doctrine.

 

[Apodictic]

Good evening everyone,

I have not been too focused in this thread, with responses all over the place. We have some Church history posts, some interpretation posts, and some miscellaneous posts.

Also I have noticed two of my past responses were not clear at the least. To make these clarifications easier to find and to hopefully get the discussion flowing again, let me bring those two posts forward to this post. The two posts are now edited with the appropriate comment.

First let me discuss something clearly so that we have no misunderstanding. Earlier I said "The word for God used in this verse is again "θεον". Every time this word appears in John it is used to describe God Almighty the Father." This statement is not correct for all cases, I forgot to mention the presence of definite articles. There must be a definite article to indicate a specific God (God of Abraham).

A response came forward.

Following show "θεος" referring to God the Father: John 3:2,16,17,33, 4:24

This made me aware of a misunderstanding occurring. Just to be clear, the nominative case "θεος" can refer to God almighty, but it must be accompanied with a definite article equivalent to "The" in English. A wonderful source that will explain what I am talking about, if there is still confusion, follows.

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

Let us look at John chapter 1 as an example of what I am talking about.

Transliteration of Greek John Chapter 1 Verses 1,2,6,12,13,14,17,18

1en arch hn o logoV, kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV.

2outoV hn en arch proV ton qeon.
.
.
.
6egeneto anqrwpoV apestalmenoV para qeou, onoma autw iwannhV:
.
.
.
12osoi de elabon auton, edwken autoiV exousian tekna qeou genesqai, toiV pisteuousin eiV to onoma autou,

13oi ouk ex aimatwn oude ek qelhmatoV sarkoV oude ek qelhmatoV androV all ek qeou egennhqhsan.

14kai o logoV sarx egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin, kai eqeasameqa thn doxan autou, doxan wV monogenouV para patroV, plhrhV caritoV kai alhqeiaV.
.
.
.
17oti o nomoV dia mwusewV edoqh, h cariV kai h alhqeia dia ihsou cristou egeneto.

18qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote: monogenhV qeoV o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato.

Source of transliteration.
http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

Take note of my highlighting scheme. I have highlighted definite references in Blue, and indefinite references in Red.

Notice every time the λογος is mentioned it is accompanied by a definite article ("ο" or "ho") which means "The". So every time the λογος is talked about, it is referring to something specific, not just a general "word". The English capalization of the word "Word" can be done to signify this, but it would have been more appropriate to have translated it "the word" instead.

When God almighty is mentioned you would expect a definite article so we all know the author is talking about a specific god and not just any god, which "god" has been used as a title throughout the Bible. In John 1:1 we see "τον θεον" or "the god" or simply "God". This is talking about God almighty here "and the Word was with God". The next mention of "god" has no definite article though, here "and the Word was god.". It would follow that this is a title of god and should be thought of in English as "a god". It could also be an attribute, describing "the word" as "godly" or "divine", although a translation containing these two words would be including a degree of interpretation as well.

Note in John 1:2, God almighty is mentioned again with the definite article "τον θεον" or "the god" or simply "God".

It is important that we recognize "The god" or God almighty is not mentioned anymore through verse 18. All references to "god" are titles/attributes from this point on to verse 18.

Example. John 1:6 "There was a man sent from god, whose name was John."

This verse can hold a duality of meanings. It can be understood to mean John was sent by God Almighty, or that he was sent by someone else who he has given the title of god. So who is John talking about? Well, he is not talking about God almighty because the definite article is missing. Given the context, John is talking about "the word" which he has already labeled as "god". So John was sent "from/by" "the word".

Another example. John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of god, even to them that believe on his name:"

The followers become the "sons of god". Upholding the immediate context, they become "sons of the word".

Another example. John 1:13 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of god."

The followers were born from "the word". This idea of being "Born-again" agrees with this interpretation. God's plan gives us spiritual life.

Final example. John 1:18 "No man hath seen god at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

The literal translation, using the Greek from the transliteration above, of this verse says.

"god no one seen ever, only begotton god is among the bosom of the Father he declares"

It surprises me that this verse is mistranslated the way it is. The mistranslation actually hurts the trinity position, which is why up until now I assumed it was valid. But on further inspection I found that this verse is not even talking about God almighty.

The verse, from my interpretation, is saying no one has ever seen "the word", that is not to say it was not present. It means they lacked the sense to recognize it, they lacked the Holy Spirit. Only "the word" is close to God, and it declares God.

Side note, notice John 1:17 mentions Moses and Jesus by name. It makes no sense for John to mention both if he only meant Jesus to be "the word". Therefore if we accept all the context, Moses and Jesus are part of the Word.

Any thoughts regarding this?

 

[Apodictic]

Has the truth silenced everyone?

I even went to the trouble of starting a thread in the Biblical interpretation sub-forum and the response I received was a "I do not know why".

I must say this is the first time ever that I have stated a non-trinity argument and not received a single response. Typically someone has something to say to justify their belief in the contrary.

I hesitate to jump to the conclusion that John 1:1-18 is now certainly been refuted as non-trinity establishing, because I am sure someone out there has some argument against the evidence I have supplied. I am actually in the process of composing a paper that will include the totality of my arguments against the trinity belief, showing the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. While I compose it I will continue to check back to see if anyone has posted a response to simulate my thinking on the topic.

God Bless GOD THE FATHER THE ONE TRUE GOD

 

[heymikey80]

Line Status
Post #40 (Current Response)
Post #43
Post #44
Post #48

The next argument presented stated the following.

The word choice of "Divine" includes some interpretation through the Holy Spirit to come to the true meaning of this verse. I would not argue this translation is literal. A translation using "god" or "godly" is just as agreeable to me, yet less clear in English.

"I am God; there is no other." Who said that?

The word John used was the sole word that could identify God in Greek, and you're saying it's "just as agreeable" to assume it's some kind of lesser god or divine being. "Lesser god" would offend what God Himself says about Himself. "divine being" uses other words in Greek.

So you're down to, It's "agreeable to me" to translate this the way you want, without referring to what Greek speakers and writers would actually mean by what they said.

That's not agreeable to me. Thus the silence. As John said, "Flee the bath // lest it fall in // while that enemy // bathes within."

 

[Apodictic]

"I am God; there is no other." Who said that?

The word John used was the sole word that could identify God in Greek, and you're saying it's "just as agreeable" to assume it's some kind of lesser god or divine being. "Lesser god" would offend what God Himself says about Himself. "divine being" uses other words in Greek.

So you're down to, It's "agreeable to me" to translate this the way you want, without referring to what Greek speakers and writers would actually mean by what they said.

That's not agreeable to me. Thus the silence. As John said, "Flee the bath // lest it fall in // while that enemy // bathes within."

My friend, the same word is entitled to Satan. Are you prepared to accept Satan as God almighty? Certainly not.

In the Greek there is a definite article "The" when God Almighty is being spoken of. In John 1:1 that article is present when "god" is mentioned the first time, but not when "god" is mentioned the second time, yet the translator, and trinity supporters, want to translate both cases to mean God Almighty. If John had meant for this interpretation he would have put the definite article "ho" in front of "god" in both cases.

Anyone who is prepared to accept a double standard in translation to support their beliefs is not being honest with themselves. So if you are willing to push the point that the Greek word "god" means God Almighty every where, then Satan is God Almighty too according to 2 Corinthians 4:4.

I again recommend this website for clarification if you still misunderstand my point, which can be summarized as such.

Greek has no indefinite articles (The English "a" is an indefinite article). Greek only has definite articles (The English "the" is a definite article). In Greek the word for god is not specific to God Almighty. And more importantly in the Bible the word is even used to describe Satan, further evidence that the word does not always refer to God Almighty. When God Almighty is mentioned the word combination "the god" is always present, to indicate a definite god. However, just because "the god" is present does not guarantee we are talking about God Almighty, because even in 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is called "the god" of this world. So in simple terms, when "the god" is mentioned it could be about God Almighty, but the context decides whether or not this is the case. If "god" is mentioned alone, it is an attribute/title, not a means of identification.

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

If the only beef you have with everything I have said is the word choice of "divine", then let us fix that right now and agree the translation literally says "god" but in English we must indicate that god here is indefinite in the Greek, therefore it should be translated "a god".

And just so we are clear, just because I have solid evidence here supporting an alternate interpretation and translation of the Gospel of John, specifically the opening Chapter, that does not mean my work is done. There are verses outside the Gospel of John which you can still argue for. In writing my paper I am sorting through all the verses used as support and placing them into two categories. The "It could be possible" category and the "This is plainly wrong" category. Judging by the responses I have received on the Gospel of John, I believe it will be going into the "plainly wrong" category.

The significance of doing this is I can focus my attention on the verses that have merit. Some of the verses presented as evidence for the trinity seem to be out of desperation. If the trinity belief is taught by the Bible it should not be this difficult for a believer to prove using Scripture. Even early Church fathers did not have full agreement on whether Jesus was God or not. The Scripture speaks to us showing why early disagreements existed.

When I finish my paper I will be sure to post it here for critique. I would not be sharing my views if I was uninterested in what the opposing view believes. Every argument put forward by trinity believers is valuable insight for me to better understand where they are coming from.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Has the truth silenced everyone?

That would require you having the TRUTH, you don't, you have a personal interpretation of it... from your point of view. Isn't that obvious yet?

I must say this is the first time ever that I have stated a non-trinity argument and not received a single response.

How do you dismiss the responses given to you here? Other than abandoning a given subject and going back to what you were repeating?

My friend, the same word is entitled to Satan. Are you prepared to accept Satan as God almighty? Certainly not.

What kind of logic are you utilizing for your research? In what kind of contextual evidence are you accusing an Apostle of Christ by equating God to Satan in terms or words?

So Apodictic, are you a native Greek speaker? Yes or no?

Do you want to take up your bogus argument to actual Greek speakers? Yes or no? If yes follow the link and post there.

Eastern Orthodox Forums

 

[Apodictic]

That would require you having the TRUTH, you don't, you have a personal interpretation of it... from your point of view. Isn't that obvious yet?

How do you dismiss the responses given to you here? Other than abandoning a given subject and going back to what you were repeating?



What kind of logic are you utilizing for your research? In what kind of contextual evidence are you accusing an Apostle of Christ by equating God to Satan in terms or words?

So Apodictic, are you a native Greek speaker? Yes or no?

Do you want to take up your bogus argument to actual Greek speakers? Yes or no? If yes follow the link and post there.

Eastern Orthodox Forums

My friend, consider the following. Whether you agree with my translation or not is rather a moot point if no one can refute the fact that Moses is mentioned alongside Jesus in John 1:17 and is therefore "the word" as well. This very context is a testament to the translation I present being correct, because we can both agree Moses is not God Almighty.

But I happily will create yet another thread in the forum you have suggested. More views could not hurt. I will also seek out a linguistic forum, non-religious of course, that can give me what can hopefully be a standard to see if the people on the Eastern Orthodox forums are being frank with me.

Thank you

 

[Secundulus]

My friend, consider the following. Whether you agree with my translation or not is rather a moot point if no one can refute the fact that Moses is mentioned alongside Jesus in John 1:17 and is therefore "the word" as well.

Verse 17 is in red. This simply doesn't say what you believe. Nothing in this text indicates that Moses is the Word.

I don't know what else we can say to refute this since the clear meaning of the verse itself refutes your argument.

" And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ " For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:14-18, NASB95)

 

[Apodictic]

Verse 17 is in red. This simply doesn't say what you believe. Nothing in this text indicates that Moses is the Word.

I don't know what else we can say to refute this since the clear meaning of the verse itself refutes your argument.

" And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ " For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:14-18, NASB95)

You claim there is a clear meaning here that Jesus alone is the word. Please point out what context you are using to arrive at this conclusion. It obviously is not as clear as you believe it to be, otherwise I would be on the same page as you.

 

[Secundulus]

You claim there is a clear meaning here that Jesus alone is the word. Please point out what context you are using to arrive at this conclusion. It obviously is not as clear as you believe it to be, otherwise I would be on the same page as you.

I say it is clear because not even Arius used this argument. Nobody in the heretical history of the church used this argument. The text does not say that Moses is the Word. Just because the name "Moses" appears two sentences away from the word "Word" does not mean that the Word is Moses. The text does not even say that.

 

[Apodictic]

I say it is clear because not even Arius used this argument. Nobody in the heretical history of the church used this argument. The text does not say that Moses is the Word. Just because the name "Moses" appears two sentences away from the word "Word" does not mean that the Word is Moses. The text does not even say that.

Whether the argument has been used before is irrelevant.

You claim that the mention of Moses does not guarantee he is part of the word, but the mention of Jesus guarantees Jesus as part of the word (Or being the word itself). Because it is clear that if someone is asked the question : How do you know Jesus is the word? They respond with John 1:17, yet using your argument we cannot come to the conclusion whether either one of them is the word.

I will concede to the fact that John 1:17 does not explicitly label either one of them as the word, but that means the verse is not a clear label for either. Therefore, in order for someone to tell me Jesus is the word alone we need other Scripture to define Jesus as such. Does such Scripture exist?

 

[Secundulus]

Whether the argument has been used before is irrelevant.

You claim that the mention of Moses does not guarantee he is part of the word, but the mention of Jesus guarantees Jesus as part of the word (Or being the word itself). Because it is clear that if someone is asked the question : How do you know Jesus is the word? They respond with John 1:17, yet using your argument we cannot come to the conclusion whether either one of them is the word.

I will concede to the fact that John 1:17 does not explicitly label either one of them as the word, but that means the verse is not a clear label for either. Therefore, in order for someone to tell me Jesus is the word alone we need other Scripture to define Jesus as such. Does such Scripture exist?

I don't know how to make this clearer.

Look at these verses. all from the first chapter of John. They form a continuous storyline.

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1, NASB95)

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3, NASB95)

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men." (John 1:4, NASB95)

" There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him." (John 1:6-7, NASB95)

" And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ "" (John 1:14-15, NASB95)

"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! "This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’" (John 1:29-30, NASB95)

 

[Apodictic]

I don't know how to make this clearer.

Look at these verses. all from the first chapter of John. They form a continuous storyline.

I am not going to deny that there are other continuous interpretations of the English Scripture. But simply stating that you have a continuous interpretation would only satisfy the requirement of context agreement.

Thanks for your posts. You have simulated further thought. The Eastern Orthodox forum is also simulating further thought. Additionally I am reading through a linguistic thread on John 1:1 which is extremely interesting. Let me think about what is being said so I have time to absorb what is being said, not to mention catch up on reading it all. Some of these sources are rather long especially from the Eastern Orthodox forum.

 

[Secundulus]

I am not going to deny that there are other continuous interpretations of the English Scripture. But simply stating that you have a continuous interpretation would only satisfy the requirement of context agreement.

Thanks for your posts. You have simulated further thought. The Eastern Orthodox forum is also simulating further thought. Additionally I am reading through a linguistic thread on John 1:1 which is extremely interesting. Let me think about what is being said so I have time to absorb what is being said, not to mention catch up on reading it all. Some of these sources are rather long especially from the Eastern Orthodox forum.

I hope my posts are useful and if they seem confrontational, that is not my intent.

I might also recommend you read Athanasius. He was the primary Church Father who fought and wrote against Arius. Reading his writings may or may not prove useful in your quest. Here is a link to the Athanasius' writings - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.html

The writings of Socrates Scholasticus are also useful for understanding the Arian controversy. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.iv.v.html

What you are stating is the same as what Arius said 1700 years ago. I do not mention this to insult your intelligence but only because I do not know the extent of your knowledge of Church history.