Trinity question

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Where does it say there is only one throne in heaven?[/SIZE]

Read this post.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17349434&postcount=64

[SIZE=-1]Where, in the bible, does it specify that the throne is a seat where only one can sit?[/size]

And your point is and relative to what exactly?

[SIZE=-1]The verse YOU quoted showed Jesus inviting humans to sit with him, does that mean all those who go to heaven and sit with him are God?[/size]

If you can produce a verse or verses where John says there ther is one throne in heaven and one on the throne AFTER all these humans have set down in the throne.

[SIZE=-1]Lots of words don't constitute a lucid arguement. You claim Jesus claims to be truly God... where... IN THE BIBLE does he say this? I'm not familiar with TDNT 3:353 as a verse in the bible.[/size]

Knee jerk copout. Was the scholarly article by a Bible college professor too difficult for you to read, so you just blow it off, without even reading it? TDNT is the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 353.

[SIZE=-1]Yes... that's what the jews ASSUMED... Jesus CORRECTED them. Here's another explanation:[/size]

Please show me where Jesus corrected them? Also this knee jerk response does not address Paul's use of "isos" in Phip 2:6. In that regard see my post above, there is none equal to or like God.

[SIZE=-1]Der Alter.... Do you have a Father? I assume yes. Are you litterally your father? I assume no. Claiming someone is your FATHER does not mean you are claiming to BE that person. Likewise... Jesus claimed to be god's SON... some jews thought that meant he was as powerful as God, therefore God's equal, and went to stone him... he corrected them stating that he was SENT by God, NOT by himself... that the father was greater than he was... hearing him say that he WASN'T equal to God made them NOT stone him.

easy enough?[/size]

Let's finish with the issues already on the table before you start throwing more out-of-context proof texts at me, shall we?

 

[Brennin]

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament – John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time ([size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε[/size]/theon oudeis eoraken popote). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of [size=+1]οραω[/size]/horaōw. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God [size=+1]αορατος[/size]/aoratos ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. The only begotten Son ([size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenhs uios. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after [size=+1]ως μονογενους παρα πατρος[/size]/os monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read [size=+1]μονογενης θεος[/size]/monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to [size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenes uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called [size=+1]θεος[/size]/theos in verse John 1. The Incarnation is stated in verse John 14, where he is also termed [size=+1]μονογενης[/size]/monogenes. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten,"

Nestle-Aland 26 -Joh 1:18 [size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε· μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.[/size]

ASV CEV ISV NIV RSVA Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [size=+1]was[/size] God.

CEV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

ISV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NIV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.


​

In his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman argues persuasively that the variant reading of the Alexandrian tradition is a corruption of the text.

 

[2ducklow]

In his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman argues persuasively that the variant reading of the Alexandrian tradition is a corruption of the text.

I would be interested in reading some of what Bart says with regards to john 1:18. I looked at about 10 different translations, including the kjv and none of them say anything about Jesus being god. Just wondering what the pros and cons are for these two widely divergent translations.

 

[2ducklow]

"God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of [size=+1]οραω[/size]/horaōw. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God [size=+1]αορατος[/size]/aoratos ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.The only begotten Son ([size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenhs uios. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after [size=+1]ως μονογενους παρα πατρος[/size]/os monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read [size=+1]μονογενης θεος[/size]/monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to [size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenes uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials.

robertsons word pictures and der alter.
extremely faulty logic for a man as erudite as Robertson.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

applying the same logic to this that Robertson applied to john 14:7 we would have to say illogically that the least of all the bretherns is jesus.
You cant see god he is invisible, you can see Jesus because he is flesh and blood, ergo jesus isnt god not ergo jesus is god. lets make sense out of scritpure not nonsense i say. come on robertson wake up.

 

[Simonline]

Der Alter

Sometimes you gotta know when to give it up as a bad job (Matt.13:14-15)

Simonline.

 

[The Gregorian]

I still believe they are one being perhaps the 3 persons can best be summed up with the word 3 minds if you want. Three different functions, one mind for each.

If they're 3 seperate persons, with 3 seperate minds, how are they the same thing?

And I know you can conceive of some of these things, but can you "completely" conceive of something that transcends time or the other things I mentioned? I highly doubt it because we have never experienced nor will we come close to experiencing it here on Earth.

Yes, It's perfectly logical for something to have existed forever.... pick a point you choose to be the finite limit of time... what was 1 second before that. Easy. Infinity is perfectly logical... finite limits... THAT'S what stumps me.

No... God, being how he is... no one can COMPLETELY understand him... but I'm not asking for that... I'm trying to understand the basic idea of "is the Father who Jesus says he is.... his Father: God.... or is Jesus wrong, and is God actually also the Son."

[/quote]Why is this illogical? I've seen you say that if Jesus was God incarnate, then God didn't exist during then. But yet, you say God can be everywhere at once. Plus, with reference to the trinity, I think it makes plenty of since. The Father would still be in Heaven, while the Son does His job on Earth. To you it is illogical, while to me it is logical. And by the way, I could care less that Simonline think it is blasphamy.[/QUOTE]

That's a good thing.

And yes, I have a perfectly logical explaination for how God can be everywhere at once... be in everything, know everything, etc. One possible explaination is this: Matter is nothing but manipulated energy... Whatever God's form... it is likely that he is made of energy in one form or another (whether 'pure' energy, or any state of any sort of matter). There's the 'mystical' explanation that God 'spoke' the universe into existance, and the laws of physics bowed to his will and the universe...began to exist. However, it's just as logical to assume that instead of making huge planets... then pushing them around, and hurling them into given trajectories.... why couldn't he simply move the energy where it needed to be, then mutate said energy into the form of matter (a planet, a human, etc.). A planet is hard to move... energy is easy to move. THIS having been said, where did God get the energy? The easiest explanation is he COULD have taken energy from himself to create the universe... An example of this: You have a hand... at will... you can transform your hand into a fist. Similarly, God may take a portion of his energy and just make a shape out of it and call it "the sun." With this explanation, he's not actually moving around other objects... simply contorting what is/was once his own energy to cause things to move. This also explains how he can cause someone to live or stop living.... If this explanation were remotely on the right track, you could never defeat God because you, yourself are made of God's energy... at his will, he could simply straighten out his hand and... unmake anything, taking away the body for whatever it is causes a person to be sentient, and therefore destroying you. THIS having been said, he can see all, because there's nothing to dictate what his sensory organs are... he may see the universe because it's part OF him, therefore he always knows what's going on... he may know what we're thinking because our minds are litterally part of him, therefore he knows it as much as we do. He my want us to get along and not hurt eachother because when we stab eachother... you're actually stabbing him, etc.

Obviously, it would be beyond my right to expect this to be correct... but this is merely a logical way to explain some simple fundamentals that people find mystical and inexplicable.

anyway... yes... Some things the people overcomplicate about God CAN be easily explained, whether I'm right or not, I'll never know, or assume to know unless God were to tell me.

So... back to the point: Yes, God can be everywhere... maybe Jesus is made of God's energy... but that would make Jesus a 'part' of God... not God a part of Jesus. In this way everything could be a 'part' of God... but that doesn't mean my chair is a sentient being in union with God and worthy of being prayed to... just because God made it, and it may therefore be a part of God.

saying Jesus IS God is like saying you are a part of your foot... Your foot is a part of you, not the other way around.

 

[The Gregorian]

I have already provided definitions for the Trinity, several times, on this forum, here is a link to the most recent. Go there and respond, or copy one or more definitions here, and give it your best shot.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15838640&postcount=402

I'm not seeing it... it's very possible that I'm just to tired so simplify it for me... you can give proof later... I don't want scripture I want one sentance that starts out: "The trinity is..." or "The Father is related to the son in ____ way" One or two paragraphs at the most. I'll give you an example with my reading of the bible:


---------------------Example:
"Jesus is God's Son."
--------------------- (if you want go this far

That's how I read it. Not God's son, kind of, but in a way not, kind of him manifest in human forth less equal while on earth, but one with God later, in spite of them having seperate minds... blah blah blah... I believe the simple explanation Jesus Gave when he said "I am God's Son."
--------------------- /end example.

That's ALL I ask for from ANY trinitarian (then I'd like the opinion on another trinitarian to see if they believe that's correct... preferably someone of the same denomination.... because in my experience... people change the definition of "the trinity" multiple times per conversation.

But you have already stated what you are going to do and I really have no interest in playing that game. I prefer a reasoned discussion of scripture, instead of, “Here is one verse/question that utterly, completely, absolutely, totally, destroys the doctrine of the Trinity. And no Trinitarian can answer it.” That type of argument will always fail.

I'm not saying that the point is completly and utterly shattered due to one verse... I'm just picking apart pieces of the theory... that's scientific method.... I'm sorry.

Here's how I see it: 1: Jesus never said he was equal to God. 2: He specifically said he was NOT equal... This is pretty obvious support for my side. True... some people have translated some verses in ambiguous ways, allowing them to infer that what Jesus said repeatedly was either a lie or only applicable while he was on earth.... but generally the simplist explanation TENDS to be the more accurate one. I choose to believe what Jesus DIRECTLY said... 'I am God's son.' I assume no more and no less.

Why not save us both a lot of time by doing some homework first?

agreed, assuming you follow the same guid lines (although, I'd say reading the bible since I could read, along with 5+ years on forums such as these arguing this exact point constitutes my having done at least some homework.)

This is how it is going to go down, you will post one or more out-of-context proof texts, and because there is no need for me to reinvent the wheel, I will go to one of my sources, and respond.

Or... how about this... isntead of both of us going to someone else and stealing their ideas, we both do research, form our OWN opinions based upon what we've read in the bible... NOT what was explained to us by people who say "in spite of what the bible says... this is what's true... trust me." (btw, paraphrasing a pastor from a youth group I sat in on a few times when I was younger... had a good laugh at that). Anywho... instead of going to a site, hitting ctrl+a, ctrl+c, clicking in this text box and finishing with ctrl+v.... how about.... ::gasp:: you write your own opinions so we can both be sure that you actually know what arguments you're making. Put them in your own words... It's been proven you retain knowledge MUCH better when explaining it to someone in your own words, rather than just regurgitating the information out of a book/off of a web site.

These sources have addressed virtually every anti-Trinitarian objection/proof text ever conceived, you have absolutely nothing new.

Exactly my point. None of my points are new because I'm doing nothing but quoting Jesus, who said he was "god's son." It was the trinitarians who changed the argument and put in 'new' facts. My argument is 2,000+ years old, and yet, still not accepted. I don't claim for any of my information to be new... I'm just discrediting what people have ADDED to the bible in order to change it's meaning.

All your arguments have been addressed years and years before. My two primary sources are, Christian Think Tank, online, and The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey, unfortunately, not online.

I like my source better: The bible.

I googled on, “Antitrinitarian proof texts refuted,” and found several more sources, these two appear to be very comprehensive, “Reachout Trust” and “Lazarus Unbound”

Suggestion: instead of looking specifically for "WAYS TO DISPROVE (your counter-point)" Read the source itself: The bible.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I fully admit it IS catholic doctrine that "God and the Son are equal" and that "the son is God incarnate" and all that rubbish... That's why I'm not a catholic... I'm a christian.

Jesus is God!Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament – John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time ([size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε[/size]/theon oudeis eoraken popote). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of [size=+1]οραω[/size]/horaōw. Seen with the human physical eye, John means.

and your point? grrr.. my tabs are messed up, lol.

Anywho... no man has seen God... many people saw Jesus... ergo Jesus is not God, That evidence supports my point, thank you.

God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God [size=+1]αορατος[/size]/aoratos ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17).

God is Invisible... Jesus isn't... point for me again... thank you.

John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.

I'll site the fact that we were all (esp. Jesus) created in God's image. Notice... he said if you've seen me you've seen the Father... he was comparing himself to God... you don't compare item A to item A.... you compare item A to item B... i.e. not the same... point for me.

The only begotten Son ([size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenhs uios. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after [size=+1]ως μονογενους παρα πατρος[/size]/os monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read [size=+1]μονογενης θεος[/size]/monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to [size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenes uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called [size=+1]θεος[/size]/theos in verse John 1. The Incarnation is stated in verse John 14, where he is also termed [size=+1]μονογενης[/size]/monogenes. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten,"

again... only begotten SON ... son being "not the father."

maybe you're confused... when arguing for the trinity... try to site verses that don't directly counter your point... that's my job.

Nestle-Aland 26 -Joh 1:18

[size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε· μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.[/size]

ASV CEV ISV NIV RSVA Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [size=+1]was[/size] God.

And why is the father never spoken of in this tense: "[size=+1]θεος" [/size]I do not claim to know the language... but have you ever come across a place where [size=+1]θεος[/size] was translated to mean the Father?

CEV Joh 1:18

No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

Crosswalk.com, type in Joh 1:18 you get:
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"1:18No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him."

Odd that you had to specifically go to only THAT translation to interpret something so completely different from even the KJV.... even that says "[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]which is in the bosom of the Father." That was good though... see? You found something mildly supportive of your point.
[/font]
etc. etc. etc.

Yes... you can go to sites for research... but base your argument on the bible.... I don't care what any denomination's 'doctrine' is.... I care what the BIBLE teaches... find some verses... compare them with multiple translations of the bible to ensure that you got a good translation... then proove it to me in your own words.

I'll make the same request you made. Do your homework... Maybe you havn't been to college for a while, so I'll refresh your memory.... homework implies that YOU understand the material and explain it to me... that doesn't mean copying and pasting web sites... that's called plagerism, and, will not only get your homework thrown out, and likely get you kicked out of class... but it also implies that you aren't comfortable with the material, and therefore are wrong.

 

[The Gregorian]

In response to another Gregorian post, this thread, which I don't feel like looking up. Does John in Revelation portray Jesus as God or a person distinct from God?

Rev 1: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him [size=+1]*[/size] and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. • • •​

[size=+1]*[/size] vs. 7, When was God, “the Almighty,” ever pierced?

God, YHWH, the Alpha and Omega... wasn't. verse 7 is John telling how Jesus will appear... notice "Amen." at the end... Then, in a seperate paragraph God chimes in and gives his approval over what was said by, without a doubt, confirming that he is God, YHWH (translated into 'Lord' to confuse this verse with Jesus).

then you give a bunch of verses showing that God, the Father, and ONLY the Father (God) is referred to as Alpha/Omega.

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] he is God; there is none else beside him.​

Again showing that YHWH is God, and there is no other God... he does not share power with anyone, and he is not a triune God... he is the Father, YHWH, and there is no one else who may be callse God. The fact that his name was translated into Jesus' title (lord) shows the corruption of that translation.

.... then you give more verses like that.... esp.:

Isa 46:9

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

again this backs up the idea of 'there is one God... not any others... God doesn't share his Godhood with any others... he has no equals, the Father is God... period.

Paul said Jesus was equal to or like God, Philp 2:6.

It says he's in the "FORM" of God, I.e. in God's image, like all of us.

.... can someone show me something biblical supporting the trinity... that's... not directly disproving the trinity by reading a tiny amount of context?

While you think, I'ma get me some cookies.... I love cookies.

 

[2ducklow]

der alter'

A Brief Definition of the Trinity
by James White

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

. He says theres some difference between a being and a person but he say a rock a dog a cat and a man are all beings, implying i suppose that everything is a being but not everything is a person. A rock wouldn't be a person. I'm not sure a rock should be called a being though. To me a being is something alive, not something inanimate. next he says that person is both what and a who. I guess that is suppose to mean something but I don't get it. I think he is trying to say that a person is both a being and has a personality, whereas a rock doesn't have a personality. Correct? If so, then this does not prove that a person of god is not a being. In fact his statement only proves that a person is a being. The last 3 sentences here are so disjointed it is difficult to make sense of what he is saying but it appears he is saying a man is both a being and a person but a rock is only a being, not a person also. Then he says a person is 2 things a what and a who which really makes no sense. Why doesnt he say what a what is and what a who is . I mean we are talking about person and being. is a what a being? is a who a person? it makes no sense. you can't calim we dont understand the trinity definition when it is so nonsensical like this.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels.

Ok here White is saying God is a being. Trinity also claims that god the father is god, therefore; since god the father is God then he is a being. but trinity also claims that God the father is a person of god. so if god the father is a being then when you call him a person of god he is still a being even though you decide to call him something else(a person of god.) Sometimes he is a person of god sometimes not. sometimes he is god sometimes not. If the shoe doesn't fit just call him something else. therefore whites def. does nothing to change the obvious that trinity is 3 beings that are one being. But white is right on one score. it is a contradiction to say that 3 beings are in one being. Which obvious conclusion he has done nothing to dispell.

What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

He hasn't adressed the subject. he has beat around the bush. Cats have personalities. People attribute different personalities to thier pets all the time. I have 2 cats and they are as different as night and day one is shy one is gregarious. Because cats aren't capable of some emotions or some altruisms that man is capable of doesn't mean they have no personalities. come on . My cats both express affection to me. that is a personality trait.the fact is all persons are beings. I am a person you are a person der alter and you are a being. White has done nothing to prove that a person isn't a being. One being of god shared fully by 3 persons doesn't prove that a person isn't a being. so his statement that 3 beings in one being is a contradcition still stands he hasn't disproved it.

 

[pentecostal]

Let me also remind you gregorian that the Bible says that Jesus would be called Emannuel which the interpretation of that is God with us.
When I showed you 1 Timothy 3:16 that was not the new KJV that was the KJV.
How can you argue that simple fact that it says GOD was MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.

 

[gort]

2ducklow,

From another thread, and in response to me, you stated.....

you can't negate scripture with anything logic or other scripture

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17526646&postcount=163

Why do you play a double standard here regarding "Jesus is God", when Scripture, in several place stated that He is God.

Pentecostal's quote from 1 Timothy above, and from John 1, stating that the Word was God.

I see non-trinitarians constantly trying to use finite logic to explain an infinite God, manifested as the Father, SOn and Holy Spirit.

So, using your own statement, why do you try to negate what the Bible tells us of Jesus as God with logic?

But, just to ask again all non-trinitarians, who I've never seen give an answer.....

Question:

The Bible tells us that through Jesus, all things were created.

In Genesis chapter 1, we see the creation of the world and all things as we know.

Where is Jesus in the creation from chapter 1?

<><

 

[buddy mack]

ok to keep it simple. first, God said, there was no other God form, he was it. second God is a spirit, and you can see the face of God and live to talk about it. third. Jesus said he was the first and last, and God said he was the first and the last. thomas said to to Jesus, my Lord and my God, and Jesus didnt say, "Why thomas you is wrong so wrong." ok now we got a problem, is there more than one God, answer no, is Jesus God, the answer is Yes. did everyone who saw Jesus die on the spot, answer no, did Jesus talk to himself and answered as a ventriqulist? answer no. so, what do we hav here, (a mind binder) that's what. so either we hav something called, the trinity or 3 god's if we include the H.S. now dont you like this simple answer.

 

[2ducklow]

2ducklow,

From another thread, and in response to me, you stated.....



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17526646&postcount=163

Why do you play a double standard here regarding "Jesus is God", when Scripture, in several place stated that He is God.

Pentecostal's quote from 1 Timothy above, and from John 1, stating that the Word was God.

I see non-trinitarians constantly trying to use finite logic to explain an infinite God, manifested as the Father, SOn and Holy Spirit.

So, using your own statement, why do you try to negate what the Bible tells us of Jesus as God with logic?

But, just to ask again all non-trinitarians, who I've never seen give an answer.....

Question:

The Bible tells us that through Jesus, all things were created.

In Genesis chapter 1, we see the creation of the world and all things as we know.

Where is Jesus in the creation from chapter 1?

<><

to much to deal with here. time restraints.
the word was god is interpeted to mean jesus is god. would you interpet 'god is love' to mean god is the emotion love? would you interpret 'love is kind' to mean love means kind? NO. kind is an attribute of love, love is an attribute of God, and God is an attribute of his word. they all 3 are the identical grammatical construction in greek. and they are all qualitative and behave almost like adjectives. This is why Moffet translates it as divine to show the qualitativeness of theos. or God.

....the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. john 1:1 moffet

 

[gort]

to much to deal with here. time restraints.
the word was god is interpeted to mean jesus is god. would you interpet 'god is love' to mean god is the emotion love? would you interpret 'love is kind' to mean love means kind? NO. kind is an attribute of love, love is an attribute of God, and God is an attribute of his word. they all 3 are the identical grammatical construction in greek. and they are all qualitative and behave almost like adjectives. This is why Moffet translates it as divine to show the qualitativeness of theos. or God.

....the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. john 1:1 moffet

I don't have to mystically interpret anything when the Bible specifically states.....

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


Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.


Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

....the Word was God. And to know that.....

Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

.....the Word was made flesh, and dwelt with us.

As to the question of where is Jesus in the creation.....when you have time.

thanx

<><

 

[Simonline]

Gregorian,


You're starting from a false premise. You're starting from what you know instead of from what is the Truth, the Truth that God has revealed to Mankind.

You are starting from the premise that a 'person' = a finite corporeal human being. Under normal circumstances (when relating to and about other finite corporeal human beings), this would be a correct (and therefore valid) assumption. However, with reference to God (and only with reference to God) it is not a correct (and therefore valid) assumption.

This is because God, as the ONLY Divine Being in existence, is NOT a finite corporeal human being. God is Spirit (Jn.4:24) God is also Infinite (absolutely unlimited in every way) Eternal (his existence is outside of time (which exists solely for the benefit of finite beings, not Infinite ones)) and Immutable (his fundamental Nature [but not the way in which he relates to and interacts with his creation] is absolutely impervious to and utterly incapable of change (Mal.3:6; Heb.13:8)).

God has revealed to us that within his Infinite non-corporeal Being there exist three separate and distinct [non-corporeal] Persons with their own separate and distinct [non-corporeal] Personalities. Together, these three separate and distinct Persons are ONE [non-corporeal] BEING who is Infinite, Eternal and Immutable.

This is an absolutely impossible mode of existence for any finite corporeal (or even non-corporeal) creature, but not for the Infinite non-corporeal Creator.

It is because God is both who and what he is that the Trinity is possible. Let's not forget that God existed first before absolutely anything was created. God created Man in his image (Gen.1:26-27) as a person who is both morally responsible and morally accountable. Obviously, God could not duplicate himself (since there cannot be multiple Infinite Divine Beings) but he could make a 'finite representation' of himself (i.e. a creature that is a Person but without being Divine) so God created Man in his own image. However, being finite, this 'representation' would have to be limited to one person per being, since it would not have the capacity to be both one being and three persons simultaneously.

So the situation is that as human beings, 'finite representations' of the one Divine Being, we are made in the image of our Creator. If then, our Creator, reveals to us that, although we are like him in some ways, we are fundamentally different from him in other ways, why do we find that so difficult to accept? Why must we insist that he has to be like us in every way? Surely, that is to denegrate God down to our level whilst at the same time forcing him to be made in 'our image'?! This is not the truth, but idolatry. God has revealed himself to us as Trinitarian but we simply refuse to accept that revelation preferring rather to replace it with our own limited understanding based on our subjective experience alone. The idea of the finite setting boundaries for the Infinite is ludicrous in the extreme.

Simonline.

 

[pentecostal]

I'll answer the question Daneel. He is God. The one where it says In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The God of Gen. 1:1 and the man Jesus in the New Testament are the same individual. Hope that answers your question.

 

[hybrid]

Hi gregorian,

In the beginning was the word and the word was with god… John 1:1

How many can you see in the beginning (before anything was created)?


One is God, The Father

Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God. . (John 17:3)

And

Another one is his word, Jesus Christ.

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. - Rev 19:13


Now how come there are two persons in the beginning?


You seemed to be an intelligent guy greg…



Why don’t you figure it out from scriptures.

 

[buddy mack]

I'll answer the question Daneel. He is God. The one where it says In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The God of Gen. 1:1 and the man Jesus in the New Testament are the same individual. Hope that answers your question.

hey pentecostal, who were the "and let US created man in OUE image?

 

[pentecostal]

hey pentecostal, who were the "and let US created man in OUE image?

Quite possibly angels. Therefore you can't assume that it was one person of the Godhead speaking to another person because it doesnt say specifically who "us" is. Now, I know that there is no way that it could be one person of the Godhead speaking to another person because then God would be speaking to himself due to the fact that Collossians 2:9 says "in him dwelleth ALL the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD bodily." (revering to christ). This is obvious that in the Godhead there is only one person and that is Jehovah who in humanly form is know as Jesus Christ.

 

[buddy mack]

Quite possibly angels. Therefore you can't assume that it was one person of the Godhead speaking to another person because it doesnt say specifically who "us" is. Now, I know that there is no way that it could be one person of the Godhead speaking to another person because then God would be speaking to himself due to the fact that Collossians 2:9 says "in him dwelleth ALL the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD bodily." (revering to christ). This is obvious that in the Godhead there is only one person and that is Jehovah who in humanly form is know as Jesus Christ.

i guess some of us could be created in the image of angels, such as, daniels mommy and jenda, but for me i was created in the image of a dog