Trinity question

[hybrid]

No it isn't because although the Father and the Son are separate and distinct Persons they are absolutely NOT separate beings. "Hear O Israel! The Lord our God; the Lord is ONE [Heb. echad - a unit composed of parts (a reference to the Trinitarian Nature of God) as distinct from yichad an indivisible mathematical unit (i.e. 'a Unitarian God')]" (Deut.6:4 - That's the other reference that I cited, that you didn't bother to look up; Cf. Isa.43:10-13) Judeo-Christianity is a strict monotheistic faith. We worship ONE God , not two or three gods!

And, for the record, no other self-respecting Trinitarian (who actually understands the doctrine of the Trinity) will agree either...as I guarantee 'Der Alter' will testify.

Simonline,

I agree. No self respecting trins who actually understand the doctrine will agree either that god is three separate being.

Greg paraphrase my 3rd statement by using the phrase “separate beings.” A bad word for trins. But since he is non-trin, I can forgive him for that.

I think what greg really want your opinion to agree or not is whether the relationship between the first person and the 2nd person of the trinity is a father and son relationship.

Since this is the first time he really fully agreed with a trin, I’m really curious what he’s up to. If he really wanna understand or he has a different agenda.

Ps. Btw, sim, feel free to comment, add or delete, improve my simple rendition of trinity if you think it doesnt give justice to the doctrine. You are most welcome.

 

[Brennin]

That's it then, game over! If you're going to redifine the English language according to to your own personal theological preferences then we have no common frame of reference which we can both use in order to communicate. We are effectively speaking entirely different languages?! This debate cannot continue.

According to the Illustrated Oxford Dictionary the word divine is defined as 'of, from or like God' from the Latin 'divus' meaning 'Godlike'. Therefore it is more correct and precise to restrict the use of the terms 'Divine' and 'Deity' to God himself and refer to all other non-coporeal beings as 'heavenly beings' to distinguish them as finite creatures from the One Divine Being Himself who alone is the Eternal Infinite Creator...it saves so much confusion...something on which non-Trinitarians seem to thrive.

The Bible teaches that there are many 'gods' but only One truely Divine Being or Deity (Isa.43:10-13). You obviously know better than God on that score and will no doubt be putting him straight in due course (Dan.4:34-35)?!

Simonline.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1di·vine
Pronunciation: d&-'vIn
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): di·vin·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English divin, from Middle French, from Latin divinus, from divus god -- more at [size=-1]DEITY[/size]
1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b : being a deity ****e divine Savior> c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2 a : supremely good : [size=-1]SUPERB[/size] ****e pie was divine> b : [size=-1]HEAVENLY[/size], [size=-1]GODLIKE[/size]
- di·vine·ly adverb

 

[Brennin]

When God said to be making man in "OUR" image (Gen1:26), as already posted--it couldn't be "angels" He spoke to, and the only logical explanation would have to be Jesus who was there.

That seems like a non sequitur to me.

...as it later says its in the image of GOD (not God and angels) man is created. Angels where not created in the image of God.

And your basis for this claim is?

 

[2ducklow]

I posted a few definitions for the Trinity, what exactly did you not understand?

The whole thing didn't make sense to me. I demonstrated why, in my opinion, it was a nonsensical explanation of trinity in post #89 of this thread on page 9.

 

[2ducklow]

When the Messiah said this he was speaking as one who is both Infinite Divine Creator (Col.1:15-17; 2:9) and finite human creature simultaneously.

Question, is the human Jesus the divine creator? or are they 2 persons, or beings that are one Jesus? If the human Jesus is not the divine creator then the divine creator was not made into flesh. Or at least 1/3 of him was not made into flesh, assuming the divine creator is the trinity. If the divine creator is Jesus then that means only 1/3 of god created the universe. Also I would need to know which one is the divine creator, Jesus?, God the Father?, God the son?, God the holy spirit?, the trinity?

His emphasis at this point was on his humanity (Jn.14:28) rather than his Divinity (Jn.10:30) which is why he was saying that the source of his teaching was Divine (from YHWH - the Trinitarian God).......

But Jesus specificaly states that his doctrine is from God the Father, not the trinity god. He did not say that the source of his teaching was divine he said the source was his Father,i.e. God the Father, unless you are saying the father of Jesus is the trinity,

rather than human (from Man in general and Jesus of Nazareth (the Messiah's human name) in particular).

I agree that Jesus doctrine was not from the man christ Jesus.

My question is: are you sure the tetragrammeton (YHWH) was used there, not the most basic, and commonly used phrase in any language: "I am." (any time you say you're doing anything, you use this phrase: "I am sitting." does not mean you are God. Honestly I never understood why they would translate YHWH into "I am."

In suport of john8:24's use of "I AM" as the divine name, I would point out that 1 other time Jesus used the divine name in that same discourse that John 8:12-58 describes. In john 8:58 .

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

If you insert 'he' into John 8:58 as they do in John 8:24 it would mean that Jesus is abraham, which obviously can't be true so it has to refer to the divine name which most all agree. I believe 'he' is most probably inserted in John 8:24 for purely doctrinal reasons, in order to distance it from John 8:27 where it says Jesus was speaking of his father. For one thing it makes no sense to say "I am He". He who? Yahweh?, the one sent by yahweh? who? If it is he who was sent by yahweh who is 'him' in vs. 26? him refers back to someone in a previous verse.

John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

who is him? him is the who in vs. 25 and vs. 26.

John 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
John 8:26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world.

The same that they heard from the beginning was that Jesus was the one sent by him , ie yahweh, ie god the father.

Jesus is saying I am not him but I am the one sent by him that is the who I am you asked me about in vs. 24.I am not the I AM I am sent by the I AM. I am sent by him who is the I AM..

In vs. 59 they took up stones to stone Jesus because of Jesus concluding remark "before abraham was, I AM.

They didn't know he was speaking of the father then and they didnt know that Jesus was speaking of the father in vs. 24 when they first asked him about it , about the I AM in vs. 24.
See they think he is caliming to be the I AM in vs. 24 so they ask for a clarification, who are you? they dont know Jesus is speaking of the Father even after he explains it to them so when we get t o verse, 58 in the same dialogue and Jesus restates the divine name exactly as he did in vs. 24 ego emi they seek to stone him because they don't know he is speaking of the Father, not himself.

 

[Simonline]

Simonline,

I agree. No self respecting trins who actually understand the doctrine will agree either that god is three separate being.

Greg paraphrase my 3rd statement by using the phrase “separate beings.” A bad word for trins. But since he is non-trin, I can forgive him for that.

I think what greg really want your opinion to agree or not is whether the relationship between the first person and the 2nd person of the trinity is a father and son relationship.

Since this is the first time he really fully agreed with a trin, I’m really curious what he’s up to. If he really wanna understand or he has a different agenda.

Ps. Btw, sim, feel free to comment, add or delete, improve my simple rendition of trinity if you think it doesnt give justice to the doctrine. You are most welcome.

In truth, the concepts of 'father' and 'son' are human concepts but these are the human concepts that God himself has chosen to use in order to communicate (at least as closely as the finite human mind can even begin to comprehend) the infinite to the finite. Therefore, even though the terms are woefully inadequate aproximations to the true nature of the relationship between the first and second Persons of the Trinity, they are the terms that God has chosen to use for our benefit in order that we might begin to have the smallest inkling of the true nature of the relationship between the first and second Person of the Trinity. For that reason no Trinitarian will declare that the terms 'father' and 'son' wrong, though they are by no means adequate for the purpose for which, in this instance, they are being employed.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

That seems like a non sequitur to me.

How can it be non sequitur? The Bible declares that Man is made in the Image of God, but not God and any creature (Gen.1:26-27; 9:6)?! Nowhere do the Scriptures either state uneqivocally, imply or infer that Man is made in any other image other than that of God himself?!

And your basis for this claim is?

The basis for this claim is that it is not based on any argument from silence such as humans being made in the image of angels (see above) Did you baptize your budgie in tomato ketchup?! If not then you're being wilfully disobedient! After all, the Bible neither states uneqivocally, implies or infers that the early church did not baptize their budgies in tomato ketchup!

Get my point?!

Simonline.

 

[Brennin]

How can it be non sequitur? The Bible declares that Man is made in the Image of God, but not God and any creature (Gen.1:26-27; 9:6)?! Nowhere do the Scriptures either state uneqivocally, imply or infer that Man is made in any other image other than that of God himself?!

It is a non sequitur because after dismissing angels as a possibility he concludes the plural must refer to God (the Father) and Jesus. I do not agree that necessarily follows.

The basis for this claim is that it is not based on any argument from silence...

That is exactly what it is based on. As far as I know, the Bible does not say in whose image (if any) angels were created. It is, therefore, silent on that topic.

 

[Maxster211]

This is the way I look at it. There is the Father, who is the divine creature, but made the world with the Son and Spirit, the Son Jesus Christ, who is and was the flesh who came to earth for our sins and then accended into heaven after 3 days in Hell and took the keys of the Abyss, and the Holy Spirit, who is with us now, helping us bring people to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and has been the one recorded through the Torah (in the firey fernace, ect) and is the Spirit in the trinity. This covers the Almighty one, the Flesh, and the Spirit, and they are all one God, divine in three entities. That is, three persons, but in one essence, the Trinity.

 

[Brennin]

When God said to be making man in "OUR" image (Gen1:26), as already posted--it couldn't be "angels" He spoke to, and the only logical explanation would have to be Jesus who was there. as it later says its in the image of GOD (not God and angels) man is created. Angels where not created in the image of God.

A Rabbinic response (please note I am not endorsing Judaism).

Scripture says many things about the nature of God.
*Scripture says there is one and only one true God, Yahweh.
None other have been created or exist-- only 1 true God, all else are false.
*Scripture shows that there is one God that is plural in nature--
Genesis 1:26 'let US make man in OUR image...In the Image of GOD he created him.'
Genesis3:22-'The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil....'
Dueteronomy 6:4, the Jewish Shema said many times by Jews every where every day, 'Hear oh Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is ONE':

The word for 'ONE' in the hebrew is 'echod' which is not hebrew for the number one, there is a separate word for the number, it's hebrew for one in unity. Like the word 'Church' is one church but indicates plural members. But especially like when the Bible says The two shall become 'ONE' in marraige. Two in ONE union.

A Rabbinic response.

 

[Simonline]

If you interpet [Jn.1:1] as to the obvious or literal meaning you have a contradiction and therefore confusion. If the Word is with God, it can't be the one that it is with. If the Word is God then it can't be with God.

Yes, the Word can, precisely because God is Trinitarian in Nature [i.e. three separate and distinct Persons within the One Being who is God]. If God were not Trinitarian in Nature then everything you are saying here would be absolutely correct and IS absolutely correct when applied to any and all finite creatures (who, by definition are all unitarian [one being/one person]) but God, being God, is the infinite exception to the finite rule. That's why it makes perfect sense in relation to God but would be absolute and utter nonsense in relation to any finite creature. You can see the nonsense because the Trinitarian concept of God is a violation of the finite rule (that all creatures are unitarian [one being/one person]) but what you are failing to grasp is that God, being infinite, is not subject to the finite rule. You are taking the rules that rightly apply to man as a finite creature and trying to apply them to God as the Infinite Creator. It just doesn't work. God doesn't need to conform to the rules he has set for his creation. That's why he's God.

The bible unequivocally states that we are to eat the flesh of Jesus to have eternal life.

But the context in which this is stated is entirely different. Christians are not cannibals. The expressions
'eating his flesh' and 'drinking his blood' are symbolic, not literal (unlike the Nature of the Trinitarian God), and refer to the believer participating in the atoning death of the Messiah by faith through the memorial service of the Lord's Supper - 'This do in rememberance of me'. As a means of grace, this is fundamental to the believers ongoing salvation.

The bible unequivocally states that we are to pluck our eyes out if they offend us.

Again, the context is completely different and refers to the issue of temptation. If you know that you're going to get sexually excited and indulge the sinful nature when you watch pornographic movies/web sites or read pornographic literature, then you 'pluck your eye out' by not watching pornographic movies or allowing yourself to be in that situation where such things are accessible. The command is metaphorical not literal. That is not the case with the Trinitarian Nature of God

The bible unequivocally states that we are to hate our parents.

When the Messiah commanded his disciples to 'hate' their parents he was using the term in a relative sense. What he was actually saying was that their love for God should be so total and all consumming that their love for their parents (one of the strongest bonds in human relationships) would seem like hatred by comparison. He was not literally saying that his disciples had to hate their parents. The same expression is used by God with reference to the Israelites (the descendents of Jacob (a.k.a. Israel)) when compared with the Moabites (the descendents of Esau) where God says 'Jacob I love but Esau I hate' If this is intended to be understood in the literal sense then it is a direct contradiction of Jn.3:16. However, we know that this is intended to be understood only in the relative sense. God is here saying that his love for the Israelites is so strong that, by comparison, his love for the Moabites (and all the other nations of the world) appears as hatred. But that doesn't mean that God literally loves the Israelites but hates everyone else since that would be a contradiction of Jn.3:16 (as well as the rest of Scripture).

the bible unequivocally states that we don't believe in Jesus john (12:44).

?!

Most all of us reject the obvious meaning of these verses

No. Most of us accept the obvious meaning when we interpret these sayings in their correct context because we know (well, it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to work it out, now does it?!) that they cannot possibly be meant literally?! However, we also know that that is not the case with texts that refer to the Trinitarian Nature of God (such as Jn.1:1) since nothing in the text leads us to believe that the passage should be understood in anything other than a literal sense. Therefore the only thing that might would be our own theological presuppositions.

I allude to [the above?] because the obvious meaning doesnt make sense [Shouldn't that be literal meaning, not obvious meaning, since what's obvious is that the statements you cite are not meant to be understood literally? However, that is not the case with Jn.1:1]. The obvious meaning of "the Word was God" makes no sense because it has the Word of god as a living thinking acting being called God. It results in God's Word being God which makes just as much sense as me saying my words are me. So the obvious meaning is not always , and frequently isn't, the true meaning.

But, as I have already said, in relation to the Infinite God, it makes perfect sense since God is Trinitarian in Nature (1Cor.2:6-16).

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

This is the way I look at it. There is the Father, who is the divine creature, but made the world with the Son and Spirit, the Son Jesus Christ, who is and was the flesh who came to earth for our sins and then accended into heaven after 3 days in Hell and took the keys of the Abyss, and the Holy Spirit, who is with us now, helping us bring people to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and has been the one recorded through the Torah (in the firey fernace, ect) and is the Spirit in the trinity. This covers the Almighty one, the Flesh, and the Spirit, and they are all one God, divine in three entities. That is, three persons, but in one essence, the Trinity.

Welcome 'Maxster 211'. You need to work on the way you communicate what you believe about God (it's a bit mixed up) but essentially what you're trying to say is spot on.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

It is a non sequitur because after dismissing angels as a possibility he concludes the plural must refer to God (the Father) and Jesus. I do not agree that necessarily follows.

OK, if the Bible unequivocally states that Man is made in the image of God (Gen.1:26-27; 9:6) but does not state, imply or infer that Man is made in any other image than that of God (except for the plural references which are easily accounted for by the fact that the Scriptures make explicit reference to three seperate and distinct Persons being Divine) then what other alternative is there? You need to substantiate your assertion that Man is made in multiple images on considerably more than silence and conjecture.

That is exactly what it is based on. As far as I know, the Bible does not say in whose image (if any) angels were created. It is, therefore, silent on that topic.

Even if angels were made in the image of God (which has yet to be substantiated?) that still would not make any difference. The image would still be God's exclusive image (irrespective of whether he had previously created angels in that same image or not). Only if angels had an 'image' of their own which was combined with God's image in the creation of Man (like the separate DNA of both parents being incorporated into the DNA of their offspring) would it be true that Man was made in the 'image' of both the Infinite Divine Creator God and finite angelic creatures...yeah, right! Pull the other one it's got bells on it That would really screw up the Male/Female relationship See Leadership is Male by David Pawson available either online from www.anchor-recordings.com (UK) or www.Goodseed.org (USA) or from your local Christian bookstore or public lending library.

Simonline.

 

[Brennin]

OK, if the Bible unequivocally states that Man is made in the image of God (Gen.1:26-27; 9:6) but does not state, imply or infer that Man is made in any other image than that of God (except for the plural references which are easily accounted for by the fact that the Scriptures make explicit reference to three seperate and distinct Persons being Divine)...

Angels speak, act, and are referred to as if they were God.

...then what other alternative is there? You need to substantiate your assertion that Man is made in multiple images on considerably more than silence and conjecture.

I asserted no such thing.

 

[Maxster211]

I don't think that all angels, if any, were made in God's image. The Bible talks about angels that look, in my opinion, somewhat like a spihnx (or however you spell it) with 6 wings to cover themselves from the glory of God, as well as many others, but then there are angels like Michael the Archangel, which we normally assume looks like a human, so if that were the case, then he would be even more graceful then man, but less powerfull then God. Dare I say, some what an elf with wings.

 

[Maxster211]

The Bible does say 'Let us make man in our image.' If thats the case, then that would mean that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit look almost the same. (Except Jesus became Flesh, so we know that he would look different then God and the Holy Spirit, as well as the fact that people have seen the Holy Spirit without any side effect, but when they see God they all fell on their backs... dead). I think that is completely believable.

 

[2ducklow]

But, as I have already said, in relation to the Infinite God, it makes perfect sense since God is Trinitarian in Nature (1Cor.2:6-16).

No verse says God is trinitarian in nature. trinity or trinitarian are not biblical words. so your finite mind has come up with a nonsensical concept to describe something that God has said. When I say obvious meaning I mean the first meaning that comes to mind. And if you say "the word was god" the first meaning or obvious meaning is that god is his word. but immediately my mind tellls me that that is nonsensical just as immediately my mind tells me it is nonsensical or not in accord with the rest of the bible that we should eat the flesh of Jesus when I read
except ye eat my flesh"
You make much about context but all of the examples have different contexts. that doesn't prove anything that john 1:1 is a different context than the flesh eating scriture. The context of john 1:1 as stated in chapter 20 is to prove that Jesus is the son of God not god. if john 1:1 is prove that jesus is god it is an ancillory point that John was makeing which makes no sense on the grounds that if Jesus is god then the purpose of the book of John should have been to prove that Jesus is god. for god is greater than his son. It would be more important to us to know who tje pme trie god is , if he is jesus, than to know if jesus is the son of the one true god. Which is also nonsensical that there is one god and jesus is god and jesus is the son of the only god there is but on course one means several that are one. the whole concept of trinity is riddled with these nonsensical concepts. you are applying your illogic to gods word and saying that it is revelation from god, at least somewhere you said that trinity is revelation from god or something to that effet. So that means god reveals to you his word to be illogic, and according to you illogic is just logic we dont understand and one day god will revceal it to us. But if that is true then god hasn't given us the ability to recognize what is logical and what isnt. in which case we can't be sure of anything being logical or illogical.

No one has the right to interpret scritpure in a nonsensical way and then claim that his or her interpetation will be explained later on by God and shown to be true. Three persons of God each of which is God are altogether one god is not scripture it is a nonsensical interpetation of scritpure. If "3 persons of god each of which is god but alltogether they are one god" were scripture , which it isn't , then one could say that even though it makes no sense, god will clairfy it some day. We cannot vouch for nonsensical interpretations because the only way we know if something is true is either because God said it or because we understand it and can demonstrate it logically. No one ever has demonstrated how god the son, god the father , god the holy spirit , each of which is god , but they are not 3 gods they are one god, can be true. all explanations i have ever read border on jibberish. as I demonstrated in post #89 in this thread. page 9.

 

[Simonline]

Question, is the human Jesus the divine creator? or are they 2 persons, or beings that are one Jesus? If the human Jesus is not the divine creator then the divine creator was not made into flesh. Or at least 1/3 of him was not made into flesh, assuming the divine creator is the trinity. If the divine creator is Jesus then that means only 1/3 of god created the universe. Also I would need to know which one is the divine creator, Jesus?, God the Father?, God the son?, God the holy spirit?, the trinity?

OK. Let me start at the begining. No nature, whether Infinite Divine Creator or finite human creature, can simultaneously be both Infinite and finite. That isn't a 'profound spiritual mystery' that's just a common or garden contradiction.

However, at the Incarnation, God incorporated the human nature into himself (which is why the Ark of the Covenant (and the poles with which to transport it) had to be made of acaccia wood and overlaid both inside and out with pure gold instead of just being made of pure gold - the wood representing the Messiah's human Nature and the gold representing the Messiah's Divine Nature (Ex.25:10-16)), specifically, the second Person of the Trinity - the eternally begotten Son/Word of God - . This was achieved by having TWO NATURES combined into ONE PERSON - the Messiah - at the virgin birth [This really was a 'profound spiritual mystery']. The technical term for this is the hypostatic union. The Messiah, having two natures, one Infinite Divine Creator, the other finite human creature, is God incarnate - Emmanuel.

As the Infinite Divine Creator (Jn.10:30) He is equal in every way to the other two Persons of the Godhead and as such, along with the other two Persons of the Godhead, brought the Creation into existence and continues to sustain it (Col.1:15-17; 2:9). However, as the finite human creature (Jn.14:28) he is able to achieve that which the Divine Nature cannot - to be 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (1Tim.6:16). The whole reason for the Incarnation was so that the Messiah could (as a human creature) die upon the cross for the sins of the world and because the Messiah is ONE PERSON (who, because of his two natures is both Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature) his sacrifice is deemed by God to be sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Therefore it would be more correct to say that the Messiah (because of his two natures) is BOTH Infinite Divine Creator AND finite human creature simultaneously. The human name 'Jesus of Nazareth' however, is really only in respect of his human nature and as such cannot predate the Incarnation (this is where the majority of Christians make the mistake of projecting the human Messiah back beyond the Incarnation and trying to claim that the finite creature 'Jesus of Nazareth' created the Creation (such an idea is, in truth, absurd in the extreme)). Neither the Infinite Divine Nature nor the finite human nature is the Messiah unilaterally. Only the two natures combined into the One Person through the Incarnation is actually the Messiah as such.

Thus the Infinite Divine Nature and the finite human nature are not one and the same (since, as I have already said, that would be a common or garden contradiction rather than a 'profound spiritual mystery') even though the Person possessing both natures is only ONE PERSON - the Messiah. This is why it is called the 'profound spiritual mystery' of the Incarnation. Furthermore I don't pretend to fully understand it (but I try my best).

But Jesus specificaly states that his doctrine is from God the Father, not the trinity god. He did not say that the source of his teaching was divine he said the source was his Father,i.e. God the Father, unless you are saying the father of Jesus is the trinity,

I agree that Jesus doctrine was not from the man christ Jesus.

That's because he is here speaking as the human Messiah therefore he refers to God as his Father (cf. Jn.14:28) but that's not the whole picture. As well is being inferior to the Father because of his finite human nature (Jn.14:28) he is also equal with the Father (and the Spirit) because of his Infinite Divine Nature (Jn.10:30-33). The issue is the source of his teachings - human or Divine? the Messiah is declaring that the source of his teachings are Divine (whether it's Father Son or Holy Spirit is not really the issue here, since it is still ONE GOD (Deut.6:4)) and not human.

In suport of Jn.8:24's use of "I AM" as the divine name, I would point out that 1 other time Jesus used the divine name in that same discourse that John 8:12-58 describes. In john 8:58 .

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

If you insert 'he' into John 8:58 as they do in John 8:24 it would mean that Jesus is abraham, which obviously can't be true so it has to refer to the divine name which most all agree. I believe 'he' is most probably inserted in John 8:24 for purely doctrinal reasons, in order to distance it from John 8:27 where it says Jesus was speaking of his father. For one thing it makes no sense to say "I am He". He who? Yahweh?, the one sent by yahweh? who? If it is he who was sent by yahweh who is 'him' in vs. 26? him refers back to someone in a previous verse.

This is only a problem because you cannot accept the Trinitarian Nature of God as three separate and distinct Persons who, together are ONE BEING. Judeo-Christianity is a strict monotheistic faith, not a tritheistic one.

I don't accept that 'he' has been inserted for doctrinal reasons but only for reasons of comprehension (which to my mind was a really bad move that has served only to muddy the waters even further). The truth is that the Messiah was making the same assertion in 8:24 that he repeats in 8:58.

If the Messiah wanted to say that he (as a supposed finite creature/lesser 'god') predates Abraham then all he had to say was 'before Abraham was, I was' but this is not the Messiah's intention. He is actually making a bold theological statement here. By saying 'before Abraham was I AM' he is actually saying, I not only predate Abraham, I predate time itself because I am YHWH - and therefore, as YHWH, I cannot possibly be a 'created being' (cf. Jn.1:1-14; 10:30-33; Phil.2:5-11 ('Lord' in v.11 should be rendered 'YHWH' since God [YHWH] has bestowed upon the human Jesus of Nazareth the name that is above every name - the name that the Divine Nature already posesses - the name of YHWH) Rev.1:8; 21:6; 22:13).

John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

who is him? him is the who in vs. 25 and vs. 26.

Obviously this is a different Person to the one who is speaking therefore it must be the Father since the Messiah repeatedly declares that he has been sent by the Father but never declares that he has been sent by the Spirit.

If 'him' is the 'who' of v.25 then you are stating that the Messiah and the Father are not only the same Being (i.e. Trinitarianism) but also the same Person (i.e the heresy of Sabellianism/'Modalism'?!) In v.26 it is the Father but that cannot possibly be the case in v.25. The Father and the Son are not one and the same Person. The Messiah is declaring himself to be One Being with the Father (i.e. to be YHWH) but he is definitely not declaring himself to be the Father.

John 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
John 8:26 I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world.

The same that they heard from the beginning was that Jesus was the one sent by him , ie yahweh, ie god the father.

Whilst that is true, that is not what the Messiah is saying. He is not only stating that he has been sent by the Father he is also stating that he is One Infinite uncreated Being with the Father (Jn.1:1-14; 8:24,58)

Jesus is saying I am not him but I am the one sent by him that is the who I am you asked me about in vs. 24.I am not the I AM I am sent by the I AM. I am sent by him who is the I AM..

No. Absolutely not. Judeo-Christianity is a strict monotheistic faith, not a 'duo' or even 'tri' theistic faith. Whilst I agree that the Messiah NEVER claims to be the Father (since they, along with the Holy Spirit, are three separate and distinct Persons) I absolutely repudiate any claim that the Messiah never claims to be YHWH. The Nature of the Trinitarian God is such that he is One Being consisting of Three separate and distinct Persons. If the Messiah is not YHWH then on what basis can he declare himself to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Begining and the End, the First and the Last, etc. (Rev.1:8; 21:16; 22:13) a designation that is exclusive to YHWH alone?!

In vs. 59 they took up stones to stone Jesus because of Jesus concluding remark "before abraham was, I AM.

They didn't know he was speaking of the father then and they didnt know that Jesus was speaking of the father in vs. 24 when they first asked him about it , about the I AM in vs. 24.

See they think he is caliming to be the I AM in vs. 24 so they ask for a clarification, who are you? they dont know Jesus is speaking of the Father even after he explains it to them so when we get t o verse, 58 in the same dialogue and Jesus restates the divine name exactly as he did in vs. 24 ego emi they seek to stone him because they don't know he is speaking of the Father, not himself.

With respect that is your distorted perspective based on forcing your theological presuppositions onto the text. The Jews knew exactly what he was claiming (which is why they wanted to stone him to death on multiple occasions). To claim that when making reference to the tetragrammaton [YHWH] the Messiah was refering to his Father alone makes absolutely no sense whatsoever 'Before Abraham was, my Father...?!' such an idea is preposterous in the extreme. I can do no other than reiterate the Messiah's own words 'If you do not believe that the Messiah is [also] YHWH then you will die in your trespasses and sins.'?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

[/size][/font]
No verse says God is trinitarian in nature. trinity or trinitarian are not biblical words. so your finite mind has come up with a nonsensical concept to describe something that God has said. When I say obvious meaning I mean the first meaning that comes to mind. And if you say "the word was god" the first meaning or obvious meaning is that god is his word. but immediately my mind tellls me that that is nonsensical just as immediately my mind tells me it is nonsensical or not in accord with the rest of the bible that we should eat the flesh of Jesus when I read
except ye eat my flesh"
You make much about context but all of the examples have different contexts. that doesn't prove anything that john 1:1 is a different context than the flesh eating scriture. The context of john 1:1 as stated in chapter 20 is to prove that Jesus is the son of God not god. if john 1:1 is prove that jesus is god it is an ancillory point that John was makeing which makes no sense on the grounds that if Jesus is god then the purpose of the book of John should have been to prove that Jesus is god. for god is greater than his son. It would be more important to us to know who tje pme trie god is , if he is jesus, than to know if jesus is the son of the one true god. Which is also nonsensical that there is one god and jesus is god and jesus is the son of the only god there is but on course one means several that are one. the whole concept of trinity is riddled with these nonsensical concepts. you are applying your illogic to gods word and saying that it is revelation from god, at least somewhere you said that trinity is revelation from god or something to that effet. So that means god reveals to you his word to be illogic, and according to you illogic is just logic we dont understand and one day god will revceal it to us. But if that is true then god hasn't given us the ability to recognize what is logical and what isnt. in which case we can't be sure of anything being logical or illogical.

No one has the right to interpret scritpure in a nonsensical way and then claim that his or her interpetation will be explained later on by God and shown to be true. Three persons of God each of which is God are altogether one god is not scripture it is a nonsensical interpetation of scritpure. If "3 persons of god each of which is god but alltogether they are one god" were scripture , which it isn't , then one could say that even though it makes no sense, god will clairfy it some day. We cannot vouch for nonsensical interpretations because the only way we know if something is true is either because God said it or because we understand it and can demonstrate it logically. No one ever has demonstrated how god the son, god the father , god the holy spirit , each of which is god , but they are not 3 gods they are one god, can be true. all explanations i have ever read border on jibberish. as I demonstrated in post #89 in this thread. page 9.

If the doctrine of the Trinity has been around for 2000 years would you care to explain how 'my finite mind' has come up with such a doctrine since I am nowhere near 2000 years old?!

So because the terms 'Trinity' and 'Trinitarian' are not to be found in the Scriptures then the doctrine is also equally unbiblical. In other words your 'God' is reduced to the level of what you can comprehend. The Bible calls that idolatry. I'm obviously swinging pearls before a pig-headed mule who delights to go round and round in circles whilst completely ignoring any arguments but his own.

Simonline

 

[Brennin]

I'm obviously swinging pearls before a pig-headed mule who delights to go round and round in circles whilst completely ignoring any arguments but his own.

Simonline

There is no need to be rude.