Trinity found in Bible or not?

[Apodictic]

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.

You are fine my friend. There has not been anything in your posts so far that has revealed anything but a genuine desire to discuss this topic. Thank you for these links. I will add them to my list of things to read.

For anyone interested the thread I started in the Eastern Orthodox forum is here.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7331850

 

[heymikey80]

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

My friend, promoting isolated uses of a word in common context does not omit the fact that when Scripture is in earnest, it isn't talking about popular presumption of the demons as "gods". As Paul himself said right on its heels:

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
​

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.

That is simply not true, and I don't even need to go outside the chapter to show it. For instance, John 1:18 omits the article: "God no one has seen at any time."

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.

The double standard is yours. This is just a plain ol' artificial treatment of a Scriptural language to try to carry the case.

So far they're not even factually accurate. Why would I trust an answer that doesn't have its facts straight?

Greek has no indefinite articles (The English "a" is an indefinite article). Greek only has definite articles (The English "the" is a definite article).

Again, false. Greek has indefinite articles.
http://www.geocities.com/alexandrosworld/Greek/Articles.html

In Greek the word for god is not specific to God Almighty.

Greece was polytheistic. Even there the gods were definitely not simple all spiritual beings. No one ever accused Hercules of being a god, for instance. No one accuse Pan of being a god.

Christian thought is monotheistic. The difference in Scripture is quite apparent.

In Christian Scriptures, when the writer is seriously referring to the true God, his God, he uses a word: "God". "God" is quite specific in monotheism. Still, Paul does occasionally talk about the gods surrounding Christians in the culture. He's quite clear when he does so.

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.

The word is used to describe what other people in the city of Corinth believed to be gods. It's also used to describe the being the world considers to be god: the "god of this world".

Both are clearly qualified as being what other people look to as a god.

Never do the Apostles talk about subsidiary beings as "gods". They're always usurping demons. What'd happen if that's what John 1:1 meant?

When God Almighty is mentioned the word combination "the god" is always present, to indicate a definite god.

Not true.

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.

As pointed out, that's what people in this world consider to be god.

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".

I'm fixing it right now to point out, when Scripture refers to God seriously, without qualifying it as the God of someone who's not a Christian -- it's always the one God. There's not any reason to believe John 1:1 is talking about anyone other than the one God. There are not minor gods or demigods in Christian thought.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

For other brothers, mikey and Secundulus, if you'd like a follow up;

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7331850

Edit: I have just seen that the link has been posted.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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.

Nonsense. The text doesn't even suggest that. You have been told that already. However, since you appear to lack the contextual knowledge of Scriptures, you may want to peek at CHRIST'S HOLY TRANSFIGURATION and the place Moses appears in there.

This very context is a testament to the translation I present being correct, because we can both agree Moses is not God Almighty.

HOW? That is my simple question, how does it even testify to your point? Moses is mentioned to have given the law. How does that make him God in the true sense of the context?

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.

Why would the Orthodox not be frank with you? THEY GAVE YOU THE BIBLE, the NT canon you are holding! Why do you seek answers here from those who will not give you what you exactly want?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

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.

The text clearly states that John the Forerunner pointed out, saying about the Word "This was He of whom I said" ... Whoelse is John the Forerunner talking about in the context? Considering the synoptics also.

I am not going to deny that there are other continuous interpretations of the English Scripture.

Yet you complain about "personal attacks" in this thread... You clearly attacking the English translators every chance you get, but with what foundation of yours, that beats me. Why should one take your translation over another one? Can you justify that please?

 

[Apodictic]

Hello everyone,

Again, false. Greek has indefinite articles.

Modern Greek does, yes. Ancient Greek, no.

In Ancient Greek there was no indefinite article. Instead, the indefinite adjective τις, τις, τι ("a certain") could be used in some cases where we use "a/an" in English, with its corresponding plural form τινές, τινές, τινά (some). The same word, as an indefinite pronoun, also meant "someone" and "anyone". For completeness, I include the indefinite adjective ένιοι,-αι,-α, which also meant "certain", "some" (in the plural sense only).

http://www.foundalis.com/lan/artindef.htm

Either way, the question remains why the definite article is missing. A question no one seems willing or able to answer. I am in the process of doing a personal analysis of John's Scriptures in order to determine a possible answer to this question. It is going to take more time though. There is a lot of Greek Scripture to go through

HOW? That is my simple question, how does it even testify to your point? Moses is mentioned to have given the law. How does that make him God in the true sense of the context?

You must keep in mind I do not feel the word is literally God Almighty, as you and others would have it. Thus the reason for my questioning the English translation and appealing to the original Greek.

I am willing to concede that Moses is not part of the word, but only if you can supply Scripture that tells us Jesus alone is the word. Without any assumptions, a plain statement. The plainer the better. Although if such a verse was brought forth I would still wonder why Moses is mentioned in the first place? What purpose does his mention serve?

You clearly attacking the English translators every chance you get, but with what foundation of yours, that beats me. Why should one take your translation over another one? Can you justify that please?

My critique of their translation is only natural, since all explanations of why the definite article missing has no bearing on the meaning of the verse has been presented...

I value my translation because it is consistent. There are definite rules of translation. In this case, if I see "god" alone then it is a title and translated as divine/godly/god/a god/etc. However if I see "the god" then I check the context to see if it is indeed referring to the God of Abraham. Only then do I translate it as God Almighty. Or if I want to be even more honest, I simply leave it as "the god" and let the reader determine it for themselves.

Which brings me to my next question, why does the translator not leave the translation with "god" and "the god" with no capitalization. Why artificially choose it to their pleasing? Why not let the reader determine it for themselves without having a predetermined interpretation on the pages? Why the dishonesty? If the translations read with only "the god" and "god" and let the reader interpret it for themselves, I would be satisfied with that translation. There is no reason for me to do the same error as they are, as would be the case if I translated some "the god" as "God" because that is a matter of interpretation based on context. And admittedly divine/godly/a god are all interpretations too. I would prefer "god" above all those for the most honest translation.

Where is the consistency in the translation you and others have? Where is the explanation of the rule that allows such a translation. The lack of a rule statement suggests that no rule exists and that the translators translated with their own predetermined beliefs in mind. Of course you could claim the same of me, but I arrived at my conclusion after I had read the Greek, not before. I am not the one adding definite articles to the word "god" as they are by capitalizing the "G". All readers of the English translation understand a capital "G" to mean God Almighty, The God, God of Abraham.

So briefly stated,

I concede the translation of divine/godly/a god because it is no better than the "God" translation, just it happens to favor another view, yet both dishonestly insert interpretation into the translated Scripture. So I push for an agreement that it be translated as "god".

The same for "God", it should be left as "the god" so as to not introduce interpretation into the translation.

I would not care if a footnote or commentary explained the church's interpretations of these words, but to put interpretation into the very translation when it is not necessary is dishonest.

 

[heymikey80]

Either way, the question remains why the definite article is missing. A question no one seems willing or able to answer.

It's a predicate nominative at the focus of the sentence: the front.

Say the definite article existed before "theos aen ho logos." The sentence would then read "God was the Word." But in its absence the word "God" becomes a predicate nominative emphasized by being at the front of the sentence, and is translated, "The Word was God."

In other words, John is emphasizing Christ's being God.

The predicate nominative construction appears again in 1:18.

You must keep in mind I do not feel the word is literally God Almighty, as you and others would have it. Thus the reason for my questioning the English translation and appealing to the original Greek.

Okay, but that's a feeling. Arguing it's because of a Greek grammatical form doesn't support or affirm your feeling. It's just a grammatical form.

I am willing to concede that Moses is not part of the word, but only if you can supply Scripture that tells us Jesus alone is the word.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only-begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 1:14
​

compare

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God (var. Son), who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. 1:17-18
​

Without any assumptions, a plain statement. The plainer the better. Although if such a verse was brought forth I would still wonder why Moses is mentioned in the first place? What purpose does his mention serve?

His mention serves the purpose of counterpoint, a recognition of the new place the Law must occupy, now that grace occupies the higher place. "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

 

[Apodictic]

Thanks for your comments heymikey and bushmaster. I am going to show everyone here something they may find interesting. The results are not conclusive yet, since I am not finished. Still, here they are so far.

The New Testament authors use the following words for god in general (Deity whether by title or by identification).

θεέ = Noun: Vocative Singular Masculine (2 times)

θεοί = Noun: Nominative Plural Masculine (5 times)

θεοῖς = Noun: Dative Plural Masculine (1 time)

θεόν = Noun: Accusative Singular Masculine (148 times)

θεός = Noun: Nominative Singular Masculine (309 times)

θεοῦ = Noun: Genitive Singular Masculine (691 times)

θεοὺς = Noun: Accusative Plural Masculine (2 times)

θεῷ = Noun: Dative Singular Masculine (159 times)

Source
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2316.htm

As can be seen above, of the 8 words used we find that 4 of them are much more frequent.

θεέ has been translated twice as "God" in the context of when Jesus said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" in Matthew 27:46. Instead of a definite article we find the word μου following the word θεέ. That word means my/mine/etc. The only God that would fit the context of Jesus saying this would be the true God of Abraham.

θεοί and θεοῖς and θεοὺς are all plural, and thus in all 8 places these words appear it is translated as "gods". They appear in John 10:34, Acts 14:11, Acts 19:26, 1 Corinthians 8:5 (Twice), Galatians 4:8, John 10:35, and Acts 7:40. Again within the larger context of what is being spoken of these cases are clearly not talking about the ture God of Abraham.

All the categories highlighted in orange are the ones I am looking into now. As can be seen, this will take some time considering the number of occurrences.