Trinity question

[gort]

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.

Gen 1:1 and subsequent verses are the correct answer.

But they are not the same individual.

The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father.



<><

 

[2ducklow]

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



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



.....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

<><

and why should i respond further you have totally ignored the points i made by classifiying them as 'mystic'.

 

[pentecostal]

and why should i respond further you have totally ignored the points i made by classifiying them as 'mystic'.

How is that a point. wahoo you classified them as mystic...do we need to like classify them as not mystic to addres your "point".

 

[gort]

and why should i respond further you have totally ignored the points i made by classifiying them as 'mystic'.

You have'nt as yet made any points in regards to my question.

to much to deal with here. time restraints.

Your statement, remember? http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17540199&postcount=93

Unless you are referring to:

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.

Which is a double standard. Using logic to negate what the Bible distinctly tells us.

perhaps it works for you when your "interpretation" is going the right way, but when your "interpretation" goes the wrong way, finite logic gets top billing.

2ducklow quote:
you can't negate scripture with anything logic or other scripture

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

My question and statements still stand, if you care to address them.



<><

 

[2ducklow]

You have'nt as yet made any points in regards to my question.

Part of your question dealt with john 1:1 to which i offered an interpetation that made sense. Which you erroniously called mystical. greek grammar isn't mystical. you didn't respond to my analysis of john 1:1 at all. my analysis wasn't mysticism. mysticism is something else entirely. like logos christology. if you wont respond to my analysis of john 1:1 why should I analyse the other scritpures you listed? you would just like wise ignore them and call them something they arent.

Which is a double standard. Using logic to negate what the Bible distinctly tells us.

I used the bible to show similar examples of the grammatical construction in john 1:1 . they do not negate john 1:1 they negate your nonsensical interpetation of john 1:1.i.e. that gods word is a being that turned itself into a body of flesh.
the bible also distinctly tells us to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood but we know that it makes no sense to take a knife and cut off a hunk of jesus arm when we see him in heaven and start eating it. so when the obvious interpetation makes no sense we search for one thatr makes sense. in this case that eating the word and drinking of the spirit of god is what is meant. you have totally failed to confront the illogic of your beliefs and accept them as if there was no illogic to them.

perhaps it works for you when your "interpretation" is going the right way, but when your "interpretation" goes the wrong way, finite logic gets top billing.

A guiding light I have in interpeting scripture, which you do not have, is does it make sense. your interpetation that the word of god is a being is god and that turned into flesh and blood makes no sense for several reasons. 1. there is only one god , god the father, there is not another god named word who is different from god the father but of course they are one being. that makes no sense. my intpretation makes sense. your's makes no sense. 2. if god changed inot a man then he ceased to be god because he became a man. if a desk is melted down and turned inot a car the car is no longer a desk. the desk has ceas4ed to exist. there is nothing logical about your beliefs.

 

[2ducklow]

How is that a point. wahoo you classified them as mystic...do we need to like classify them as not mystic to addres your "point".

I did not classify them as mystical. my analysis was not mysticism. perhaps you would care to comment on the poionts i brougth up. god is love. does that mean god is the emotion love?
love is kind. does that mean love means kind?
no.
the word was god. does that mean that god = the word?
no.
it means that the word has a divine quality about iit. which makes sense. to say the word of god is a being that is god and god the father is god and they arent each other is to have 2 gods which contradicts the bible which says there is only one god. if god the father is the word then that too makes no sense for god is more than just his word. god is not anymore his word or what he says than i am my word or what I say.
If i say I give you my word. does that mean i gave you another being that is me and i am 2 beings that are one being? no.

 

[gort]

2ducklow quotes:

Part of your question dealt with john 1:1 to which i offered an interpetation that made sense. Which you erroniously called mystical. greek grammar isn't mystical. you didn't respond to my analysis of john 1:1 at all. my analysis wasn't mysticism. mysticism is something else entirely. like logos christology. if you wont respond to my analysis of john 1:1 why should I analyse the other scritpures you listed? you would just like wise ignore them and call them something they arent.

John 1 and the other Scripture from Pentecostal was background for my question regarding, "Where is Jesus in the creation from Gen." These show, as said before, that all things were created by and through Him. And that "God was manifest in the flesh."

I was'nt asking for an analysis of anthing, other than an answer to my 1 question.

I used the bible to show similar examples of the grammatical construction in john 1:1 . they do not negate john 1:1 they negate your nonsensical interpetation of john 1:1.i.e. that gods word is a being that turned itself into a body of flesh.
the bible also distinctly tells us to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood but we know that it makes no sense to take a knife and cut off a hunk of jesus arm when we see him in heaven and start eating it. so when the obvious interpetation makes no sense we search for one thatr makes sense. in this case that eating the word and drinking of the spirit of god is what is meant. you have totally failed to confront the illogic of your beliefs and accept them as if there was no illogic to them.

I'll take the literal meaning that the Word was God, which is non-sensical. I'll also take the literal meaning that "through Him, all things were made."

And with these meanings, plain as they are, I'll coin your phrase, "you can't negate scripture with anything logic or other scripture."

A guiding light I have in interpeting scripture, which you do not have, is does it make sense. your interpetation that the word of god is a being is god and that turned into flesh and blood makes no sense for several reasons.

Of course you do. And, of course, you know me so well enough to say that I do not have a "guiding light in interpreting Scripture".

That's fair.

I also don't have an interpretation that says, "the word of god is a being.....", but I do have Scripture that says, the Word was God."
I also have Scripture that says, " and the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled with us....".

1. there is only one god , god the father, there is not another god named word who is different from god the father but of course they are one being. that makes no sense. my intpretation makes sense. your's makes no sense. 2. if god changed inot a man then he ceased to be god because he became a man. if a desk is melted down and turned inot a car the car is no longer a desk. the desk has ceas4ed to exist. there is nothing logical about your beliefs.

Some more logic that negates Scripture so plainly read?

Anyhoo, the question is still open for you. The 1 question.



<><

Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked on them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

 

[The Gregorian]

In reponce to 2duck.... I generally agree... God Can't be 3 beings in one being, or 3 persons in one person. Yet, based on the point the person's trying to make, I've heard many times when people say God is 3 beings in one person (the 'the son is the Father manifest in the flesh' theory) yet also be 3 persons in one being (the responce to the fact Jesus said 'the father is greater than I." since if Jesus WAS God manifest in the flesh, he wouldn't be greater than himself because he IS himself.) Interesting point.

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.

yes... and my legal name is Christopher... which Means "bearing Christ", derived from Late Greek &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962; (Christos) combined with &#966;&#949;&#961;&#969; (phero) "to bear, to carry". Christopher was the legendary saint who carried the young Jesus across a river. He is the patron saint of travellers.

That does not mean that everyone named "christopher" litterally carry Jesus around... All names have meanings... but because you're given a name with a significance, doesn't mean that the meaning of the name is a litteral trait... hence, the name "Emannuel" does not constitute Godhood.... I've met people now adays named Emannuel, or at least Mannuel.... the most recent one was a pudgey little mexican fella.... he was not God... in spite of the litteral meaning of his name.

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.

Because most translations, including the new KJV show something completely different then that... and if one person's poor translation completely changes the message in the rest of the bible... I assume it's the TRANSLATION that's incorrect, not the bible. (if MOST reputable bibles translated it that way, I'd give it more credit.... but if even a more up to date translation by the 'same' people correct this verse... I assume it to be a mistranslation.)

Example: german:Rammstein sings a song called "Engel" including this lyric:
"Gott' weiss' ich will kein Engel sein."

This could be translated, by an amature, into "God doesn't know if I will be an angel." by falling for the false cognate of "will." A more proper translation is "God knows I don't want to be an angel." This is a completely different meaning.

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

No... we use the bible... inspired by the same infinite God we're discribing. The difference, is we use Logic while reading it... i.e. if Jesus says "The Father is Greater than I." and never says "I am equal to my Father" we, logically, deduce that Jesus is not his Father, or at least that the Father is not replacable by the Son, because one is greater than the other.

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.

First, want to comment on your style... you're... actually... THINKING! You're not just going to "Howtoprovethetrinity.com" and copy/pasting info... you actually UNDERSTAND your argument.... for this you gain my respect.... (wanted to say that up front, so you know I'm not trying to sound smug when responding to you... you HONESTLY do have my respect.)

However... I disagree. First... it is True that on multiple occasions it has been said "There is only One God." Most notably (for my side of the arguement) in 1 Corinthians [font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]8:6:

There is for us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we have our being through him.

it specifically says There is only ONE God... and that is The Father... Not the Son. The Son has the title of "lord" not "God." the title of "God." is ONLY held by the Father.

Second: When did Thomas call Jesus his "God?" Because I can point to you where Jesus called The Father "[his] God." Yet, the Father never calls anyone (including the Son) his God... because... being God... he has no superior.

Again... I DO like how you think dude... and that was a very lucid and understandable argument... But argument aside... without trying to proove anything... could you just say that the "trinity" is? I get so many diametrically opposed responces from so many people it's hard to decide what theory of the trinity I'm trying to talk about.
[/font]

 

[The Gregorian]

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

Yes... Jesus was given a human form... this doesn't prove anything about john 1:1

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.

No... That's why I try to use the word "individual." This may be a person, an angel, God, a cat, any being that is specifically "THAT" being, as opposed to someone else.

This is because God, as the ONLY Divine Being in existence

Are angels not divine beings? Does this mean that all angels are God, making it a multiplicity, rather than a trinity? Satan started out as an angel, a divine being... Satan CERTAINLY is not God (I don't even like suggesting it as a possibility).

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

He is unlimited in every way, but incapable of changing any aspect of himself? Hello contradiction.

A: He DOES have limits....
1. He CANNOT lie (because anything he holds to be the truth... becomes the truth. anything he says becomes the truth, and therefore cannot be a lie.) (note, bible specifically says God cannot lie.
2. He CANNOT be overpowered (being the source of all life and power in the universe... any power you have is rightfully God's power... he gave it to you, he can take it away.)
etc.

B: Immutable... I don't remember anything in the bible saying that... In fact... I believe it was when he was bringing the flood that God remarked that at that point he actually regretted making humans. God DOES have emotions like everyone else... sometimes God is VERY wrathful... usually very peacful and loving, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by immutable.

C: Existing outside of time... is rubbish. This is bowing to einsteins garbage theory of special relativity that suggests that time is a 'thing' to be altered and existed in and out of. Time is NOT an object... For the infinite duration the God has existed, time has been ticking.

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.

1: Where, in the bible. I don't care what priest claims God revealed it to him... I want to see it in the bible... I am a CHRISTIAN, I base my faith upon what JESUS said, and what was said IN THE BIBLE... not any person who claims to know something better than the bible.

2: If all three are infinite, eternal, and immutable... that means Jesus is Immutable... however he started in a spiritual form... mutated, and was given a human form.... was slain, and brought back to heaven, in spiritual form again... Jesus is certainly not immutable.

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.

Well... maybe your God... but I'm not seeing that as the God in the Bible. The God in the bible revealed himself IN THE BIBLE as The Father, YHWH, the ONLY God, to which there is NO equal... The God in the Bible has a Son, Jesus, the Massiah, Emannuel, Logos, etc. who is his only begotten son and his most trusted and honored servent. A Servent is never equal to his master, according to the bible.

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…

I'm sorry... but I didn't understand that... what are you trying to say?

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

lol

But they are not the same individual.

The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father.

I'm assuming you're supporting the idea of the trinity ... but... how can they be 'one being' if the father isn't the son, neither is the son the father.... or... is there actually someone who agrees with me!?

 

[The Gregorian]

I did not classify them as mystical. etc.

--pretends to be a mod--

2duck and daneel... I like how both of you think, and I forgot who was making one point, but it seems like you're both arguing over a name calling type thing... As far as I see the argument is: one person used the word 'mystical' the other person was offended and said it isn't mystical, then the other responded that mystical isn't a bad thing, then that.. etc.

I really enjoy both of your points and I really would hate to see this go too far south... how's aboot you two both forget the "mystical" comment. and start fresh with a new point.

(btw.... I know I sound like I'm just completely dead set in my belief, but I AM reading each verse and opinion that is at least remotely logical... you guys have ALL made some very good points, and I've been learning a lot from this thread, please don't turn against eachother.... a good debate like this is the best way for everyone to learn.)


I can't stop the discussion by any means... but John 1:1 IS a contraversial topic.... depending on your translation it can go either way... I suggest getting off that subject because I can see this going down hill, then this nice li'l thread going bye bye.

 

[gort]

Gregorian quotes:

2duck and daneel... I like how both of you think, and I forgot who was making one point, but it seems like you're both arguing over a name calling type thing... As far as I see the argument is: one person used the word 'mystical' the other person was offended and said it isn't mystical, then the other responded that mystical isn't a bad thing, then that.. etc.

I really enjoy both of your points and I really would hate to see this go too far south... how's aboot you two both forget the "mystical" comment. and start fresh with a new point.

I have no problem with saying bye bye to the "mystical" citation. I meant no harm nor ill will by it. Had I wanted to harm or cause ill will, much more appropriate words could have been used. I have already seen it as something blown out of proportion.

(btw.... I know I sound like I'm just completely dead set in my belief, but I AM reading each verse and opinion that is at least remotely logical... you guys have ALL made some very good points, and I've been learning a lot from this thread, please don't turn against eachother.... a good debate like this is the best way for everyone to learn.)

It is not my intent to tear down. One cannot tear down by asking 1 question.

I can't stop the discussion by any means... but John 1:1 IS a contraversial topic.... depending on your translation it can go either way... I suggest getting off that subject because I can see this going down hill, then this nice li'l thread going bye bye.

John 1:1 should not be controversial. If John 1:1 appears to be controversial, then there are a ton of other Scriptures that would also go along with it. And if that is the case, then someones understanding, be it mine or anothers, has a problem.

Paricularly if we have to start discounting (tearing down) what the Bible has to say.It is better to find solutions (building up) and having the Scripures jive together. I believe that all Scripture is God breathed. The Lord who is omni- in all ways would not let His desires and word to be corrupted. I know this to be Truth. His Beloved Son was put on the Cross for the Truth. THe Father would not let the Truth fall away. Not with the SOn on the Cross.

Now then, let's discuss 3 dimensional chess, but not in a 2 dimensional facet. The 2 dimensional player will lose every time. And yet nobody will gain a brother.



<><

 

[2ducklow]

John 1 and the other Scripture from Pentecostal was background for my question regarding, "Where is Jesus in the creation from Gen." These show, as said before, that all things were created by and through Him. And that "God was manifest in the flesh."

I was'nt asking for an analysis of anthing, other than an answer to my 1 question.

Part or your theory about where Jesus was at the time of creation isthat he is god supported by john 1:1. I disproved that by showing the true meaning of john 1:1. you didnt respond to my analysis. If jesus isn't god then he wasn't around at the time of creation. you want me to analyis gen. 1:26 I suppose. but what it you gave an analysis of gen. 1:26 and I ignored all the points you brought up and said that 1 pet. 1:20 proves Jesus did not exist before he was born for it says God foreknew Jesus. (He can't be around when god foreknew him otherwise if he was god would know him not foreknow him)

1 Peter 1:19-20 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,asv

Jesus was foreknown by god before the foundation of the world hence he wasn't around at creation.

I'll take the literal meaning that the Word was God, which is non-sensical. I'll also take the literal meaning that "through Him, all things were made."

Well I'm glad you agree your interpetation of john 1:1 is nonsensical. most trintiarians can't admidt that even though it is abundantly clear. However if you take 'through him' literally it would mean everything was created inside Jesus, like in his belly. everything was created as it passed through the belly of Jesus would be a literall interpetation. I don't think you believe that. I noticed you did not touch my example of eating jesus flesh and drinking his blood. do you take those literal too. do you believe you have to pluck your eye out if it offends you? that is the obvious and literal interpetation . Do you believe 'all Jerusalem was in an uproar over the doctrine of Jesus?" babies were in an uproar? the disciples of Jesus were in an uproar? i mean the b ible says all doesnt it? that would be the obvious and literal interpetation. you seem to be saying that the obvious and literal interpretation of john 1:1 is the only one that can be right even though it results in the word of god being a being. even though it results in what god says being god. clearly making sense out of john 1:1 isn;'t a priority for your interpetation.

I also don't have an interpretation that says, "the word of god is a being.....", but I do have Scripture that says, the Word was God."
I also have Scripture that says, " and the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled with us....".

Your interpretation has gods word being god. god is a being is he not? ergo gods word is a being. you cant say "Jesus is a man" and then say
"I didn't interpet that scripture to mean jesus is a being, I said he is a man". Because a man is a being and god is a being. gettin a little picqiune are we?

Of course you do. And, of course, you know me so well enough to say that I do not have a "guiding light in interpreting Scripture".

Well, if your interpetation is nonsensical then its not a giant leap in logic to assume that making sense out of scritpure isn't a high priority for you. and your interpetation of john 1:1 is nonsensical as I have demonstrated and as you have admidted. More picqiuneness?

I also don't have an interpretation that says, "the word of god is a being.....", but I do have Scripture that says, the Word was God."
I also have Scripture that says, " and the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled with us....".

And I have scripture that says we are to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood and pluck our eye balls out, cut our hands off and that we are to hate our mothers, brothers, fathers and sisters and even hate ourselves.

Some more logic that negates Scripture so plainly read?

no my logic negates nonsensical interpetations of scritpure not scritpure.

 

[Simonline]

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.

OK, according to the Bible, in who's (exclusive) image is Man made? Again we [Trinitarians] ask, of whom do the Scriptures refer when they state 'Let US make Man in OUR image...so God created Man IN HIS OWN IMAGE, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD he created him, male and female he created them' (Gen.1:26-27; Heb.1)?!

To suggest that Man might be made in the image of both God and angels is effectively an argument from silence. On exactly the same basis you could equally assert that the early church baptized their budgies in tomato ketchup for no other reason than the Bible does not explicitly say that they didn't?!

Furthermore, if God is exclusively Unitarian (One Being/One Person) in Nature and God ['Jehovah' (?)] was incarnate as the Messiah (Col.2:9) as you posit, then who was sustaining the universe whilst God was dead for three days and three nights (Col.1:15-17)?!

From what you have said in other posts you don't believe as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Father and the Son are two entirely separate and distinct beings but then neither do you believe that God is Trinitarian in Nature (three separate and distinct Persons within the One Infinite Eternal and Immutable Being). From what you have said in other posts I would guess that what you believe is possibly 'Oneness' Pentecostalism which to all intents and purposes I believe to be identical with the ancient heresy of Sabellianism or 'Modalism' - the belief that God is actually Unitarian in Nature but assumes the persona of three separate and distinct Persons ['Father' 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit'] during different periods of human history?

Simonline (1Cor.2:6-16).

 

[2ducklow]

from post #91 in this thread.

Where is Jesus in the creation from chapter 1?

Jesus was only in the mind of the Father at the time of creation.

1pe 1:20foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you,YLT.

 

[Simonline]

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

Not only is that not funny, it's also blasphemous. You were created in the image of God and to traduce that image by denegrating it to the level of any created being (especially one of a lower order than Man, who is created in God's image), is tantamount to blasphemy.

Simonline.

 

[gort]

2ducklow quotes:

Part or your theory about where Jesus was at the time of creation isthat he is god supported by john 1:1. I disproved that by showing the true meaning of john 1:1. you didnt respond to my analysis. If jesus isn't god then he wasn't around at the time of creation. you want me to analyis gen. 1:26 I suppose. but what it you gave an analysis of gen. 1:26 and I ignored all the points you brought up and said that 1 pet. 1:20 proves Jesus did not exist before he was born for it says God foreknew Jesus. (He can't be around when god foreknew him otherwise if he was god would know him not foreknow him)

You still have'nt answered my 1 question.

1 Peter 1:19-20 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,asv

Jesus was foreknown by god before the foundation of the world hence he wasn't around at creation

.

Then let's throw out the part of the bible where "All things were created by Him, and through Him all things were made."

And the one about "Before Abraham, I was."

Well I'm glad you agree your interpetation of john 1:1 is nonsensical. most trintiarians can't admidt that even though it is abundantly clear. However if you take 'through him' literally it would mean everything was created inside Jesus, like in his belly. everything was created as it passed through the belly of Jesus would be a literall interpetation. I don't think you believe that. I noticed you did not touch my example of eating jesus flesh and drinking his blood. do you take those literal too. do you believe you have to pluck your eye out if it offends you? that is the obvious and literal interpetation . Do you believe 'all Jerusalem was in an uproar over the doctrine of Jesus?" babies were in an uproar? the disciples of Jesus were in an uproar? i mean the b ible says all doesnt it? that would be the obvious and literal interpetation. you seem to be saying that the obvious and literal interpretation of john 1:1 is the only one that can be right even though it results in the word of god being a being. even though it results in what god says being god. clearly making sense out of john 1:1 isn;'t a priority for your interpetation.

More finite logic to explain an infinite God?

Your interpretation has gods word being god. god is a being is he not? ergo gods word is a being. you cant say "Jesus is a man" and then say
"I didn't interpet that scripture to mean jesus is a being, I said he is a man". Because a man is a being and god is a being. gettin a little picqiune are we?

Please don't put words in my mouth to tell me what I did'nt say. I've already explained and won't do it yet again and again.

And I have scripture that says we are to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood and pluck our eye balls out, cut our hands off and that we are to hate our mothers, brothers, fathers and sisters and even hate ourselves.

At this point, I can see my 1 question won't be answered by you. I've asked this same question several times in this forum in different threads. Usually it is always ignored by non-trinitarians. And when repeatedly asked again and again, never answered.

But what does happen is sidestepping of the issue, and often, personal attacks come about with much vitriol as found in posts such as yours, 2ducklow.

In another thread about prophets, you stood firm in what the bible has to say regarding such.

Yet, regarding Jesus as God the Son, you play the hypocrite and disregard what the bible does have to say of whom Jesus is, so plainly written of.

I've prolly asked you the 1 question at least 3 times, while putting up with the idle prattle.

Biblically, you are now a marked man, and I will no longer have anything to do with you.

But the 1 question is still open to other non-trinitarians, as originally asked.

<><

 

[2ducklow]

And the one about "Before Abraham, I was."

Jesus was speaking of the Father not himself when he said

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

I AM is the divine name. Jesus did not say "I was"

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.kjv

he is in italics which is the kjv way of showingthat it isnt in the greek so really in this 24th verse Jesus is invoking the divine name "I AM"
In verse 27 it is stated that Jesus was speaking of the Father and that the people didn't understand it. As you do not understand that when jesus uses the divine name he isn't speaking of himself but rather of his father.

John 8:27 They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.

You still have'nt answered my 1 question.

you keep sayin 1 question without stateing what your question is. I looked back and found what I thought you were refering to and answered it in post #114.

Please don't put words in my mouth to tell me what I did'nt say. I've already explained and won't do it yet again and again.

this response has no bearing on what i said. I never accused you of something you didnt say.

But what does happen is sidestepping of the issue, and often, personal attacks come about with much vitriol as found in posts such as yours, 2ducklow.

Well I've attempted to keep the conversation civil. I don't think i have slipped in this endeavor any more than you have.

More finite logic to explain an infinite God?

well finite logic is all I have. I certainly wouldn't employ finite illogic. I'm not infinite. Im a finite being and I work with the brain and logic that I have.

At this point, I can see my 1 question won't be answered by you.

I answered it in my previous post. perhaps you missed it.

Yet, regarding Jesus as God the Son, you play the hypocrite and disregard what the bible does have to say of whom Jesus is, so plainly written of.

and I suppose calling me a hypocrite isn't name calling? I have already explained that several times about who jesus is vis-a-vis john 1:1.
[q1uote=daneel]I've prolly asked you the 1 question at least 3 times, while putting up with the idle prattle.[/quote]
Idle prattle? seems personal attacks aren't personal attacks if you use them. and again I answered your question in my last post.

Biblically, you are now a marked man, and I will no longer have anything to do with you.

Well if the kitchen gets to hot best to duck out. no pun. A marked man? biblically? I believe Jesus is the son of God.


John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John states that the purpose in writting the book of john was to convince us that Jesus is the son of God. not that Jesus is god. So I am marked biblically as a believ er in what John said namely that Jesus is the son of god. Sorry you dont want to have anything to do with someone who believes what the bible says about jesus that he is the son of God.
IF you dont want to talk to me fine. but I am responding to what you said about me. whether you respond to this is immaterial to me.

 

[gort]

One more time, just for clarity.......

Jesus was speaking of the Father not himself when he said

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

I AM is the divine name. Jesus did not say "I was"

Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.

Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

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

Jhn 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

You have no credibility in your post, showing that Jesus was speaking of the Father.

you keep sayin 1 question without stateing what your question is. I looked back and found what I thought you were refering to and answered it in post #114.

Back in post 91 I asked the 1 question. It is posed as a question.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17537648&postcount=91

to which you responded to said question:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17540199&postcount=93

this response has no bearing on what i said. I never accused you of something you didnt say.

Of course you did. You stated that ,

Your interpretation has gods word being god. god is a being is he not? ergo gods word is a being. you cant say "Jesus is a man" and then say
"I didn't interpet that scripture to mean jesus is a being, I said he is a man". Because a man is a being and god is a being. gettin a little picqiune are we?

Well I've attempted to keep the conversation civil. I don't think i have slipped in this endeavor any more than you have.

Well, you have the "guiding light" and I don't.

I answered it in my previous post. perhaps you missed it.

I only missed it as I was replying to you in post #116. During that time, you posted. Check the times of the postings. I may be able to type somewhat fast, but not able to reply in 3 minutes, regarding what I had posted.

and I suppose calling me a hypocrite isn't name calling? I have already explained that several times about who jesus is vis-a-vis john 1:1.

I find the writings in your posts to be of a hypocritical nature. What works for you in explaining Scripture (that which is plainly written in Scripture) is good, until someone else uses the same basis for explaining Scripture, upon which you now resort to talking about eating arms and drinking blood.

Need I say more?

Well if the kitchen gets to hot best to duck out. no pun. A marked man? biblically? I believe Jesus is the son of God.


John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John states that the purpose in writting the book of john was to convince us that Jesus is the son of God. not that Jesus is god. So I am marked biblically as a believ er in what John said namely that Jesus is the son of god. Sorry you dont want to have anything to do with someone who believes what the bible says about jesus that he is the son of God.
IF you dont want to talk to me fine. but I am responding to what you said about me. whether you respond to this is immaterial to me.

Lastly, by starting out in this thread to ask 1 simple question, it has now denigrated to what it has become.

It was not my intent to tear you down. Neither are you marked as an unbeliever. You're assumption is wrong.

I'll leave it at that.

<><

but you are correct. Jesus is the divine name. I am.

Only God gets to say that.

Only God forgives sin.

Only God created the world and all things.

Only the Logos can be the divine expression of God.

Only God can be manifested in the flesh.

Only God can have authority in all things.

Only God can have no sin.

Even in a body of flesh.



toodles



<><

 

[Simonline]

Yes... Jesus was given a human form... this doesn't prove anything about john 1:1

No. 'Jesus' was NOT given 'human form' at all. That is a total misunderstanding based on sloppy and inaccurate theology on the part of those claiming to be Trinitarians. The correct understanding is that the eternally begotten Son/Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity, incarnated to become the Messiah, who's human name is Jesus of Nazareth.



Prior to the Incarnation the Messiah [the term given to the amalgamation of the two natures (one that of the Infinite Divine Creator, the other being that of a finite human being) into one Person through the hypostatic union] did not exist. The Messiah's human nature only came into existence at the Incarnation and not before. Neither nature is unilaterally the Messiah, only when the two natures come together in the One Divine/human Person [Emmanuel - 'God with us'] does the Messiah exist. But then, you know all this already, since I have laboured this point with you repeatedly.



Jn.1:1 proves a) that the Word existed in the begining, b) that [in the begining] the Word was also with God and c) that [in the begining] the Word (as well as being with God) also was God. Thus, that one verse alone explicitly substantiates the fact that the ONE BEING who is God also has multiple Persons [Trinity] since it explicitly and unequivocally states that the Word was [in the begining] BOTH God and WITH God - separate and distinct Persons within the ONE DIVINE BEING ?!



Now, unless one neither speaks nor comprehends English then one has absolutely no excuse for not accepting what the English text clearly and unequivocally states. Any refusal to accept this can be nothing other than culpable blindness (Matt.13:14-15) for which one will most cetainly be held accountable.

No... That's why I try to use the word "individual." This may be a person, an angel, God, a cat, any being that is specifically "THAT" being, as opposed to someone else.

No. It may not be God, since God, according to the Scriptures, is not 'an individual'. He is three individuals within the ONE BEING. Again, as I said, you are starting from what you know (the term 'individual', which can only apply to a unitarian finite creature) and applying it to what you clearly do not know (the Trinitarian God). You are working backwards and projecting Man's limitations on to God, effectively making God in the image of Man...that is idolatry.

Are angels not divine beings? Does this mean that all angels are God, making it a multiplicity, rather than a trinity? Satan started out as an angel, a divine being... Satan CERTAINLY is not God (I don't even like suggesting it as a possibility).

Although the term 'angel' is not limited to the class of created beings referred to in Hebrews 1, [i.e. "The 'Angel' of the LORD"] it is absolutely not true that any finite creature can also be the Infinite Creator simultaneously (which is why the Messiah has to have two natures so that he can be both Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature simultaneously). The same nature cannot be both Divine and not Divine simultaneously. Such an idea is not a 'profound spiritual mystery' it is simply a blatant contradiction.



Lucifer, by definition, cannot possibly be a Divine being since Divinity (being Infinite, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Immutable) cannot, by definition, be duplicated. You need to learn the difference between theological and religious terms. The class of created beings known as 'angels' might well be 'heavenly' but they are certainly not Divine (Heb.1) As bishop J.C.Ryle once said "Imprecise theological definitions are the essence of religious controversy"

He is unlimited in every way, but incapable of changing any aspect of himself? Hello contradiction.

Misrepresenting me again I see. I didn't say that God is incapable of changing any aspect of himself at all. What I said was that God's Nature (God's fundamental essence, what he is in and off himself, what defines him as God and distinguishes him from his creation) is Immutable. God is quite capable of changing the way in which he both manifests himself to his creation and relates to his creation in response to how his creation behaves in relation to his absolute, Immutable, [Perfect] Nature.



It is the way in which the eternally begotten Son/Word of God manifested himself prior to the Incarnation that he gave up in order to become the Messiah. The eternally begotten Son/Word of God absolutely DID NOT 'give up', 'lay aside', 'take off' or 'put down' any of his essential Divine Nature in order to become the Messiah. He simply changed the way in which he manifested himself in order to become the unique Being that is both Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature simultaneously, [i.e. the Messiah] and walk the Earth as a pre-resurrection human being.



Thus, there are only apparent contradictions for those who cannot (or will not) comprehend the Truth, not actual contradictions which would negate both God and his revelation.

A: He DOES have limits....

No. God has no limits. There are things that are peculiar to finitude. God cannot sin (since God himself defines sin exclusively according to his own Perfect and Immutable Nature, against whom would God sin?) and neither can he exist within time (time exists for the benefit of finite creatures as the medium in which they exist (just like God created water for fish) Just as fish can't live outside of water and men can't live within water (artificial life support systems notwithstanding) so creatures can't exist outside of time and God cannot exist within time [I know what you're thinking - only the Messiah's finite human nature exists within time. His Infinite Divine Nature exists outside of time -which, again, is why the Messiah has to have two natures to enable him to do this.] These are things peculiar to finite creatures, but they are not limitations on God.

1. He CANNOT lie (because anything he holds to be the truth... becomes the truth. anything he says becomes the truth, and therefore cannot be a lie.) (note, bible specifically says God cannot lie).

Not true at all. [You really haven't grasped what defines God as God have you? It is obvious from what you're saying in your posts that you think of God as just a bigger version of a human creature (just like 'Gulliver' in 'Lilliput')?!] Whilst it is true that God cannot lie, it is absolutely not because 'anything that God holds to be the 'Truth' becomes the 'Truth''. That is complete relativism. If, tomorrow morning when you awoke, you discovered that during the night whilst you were asleep, God had announced to the world that everything that was, up until that point, 'good' was now 'evil' and that everything that was, up until that point, 'evil' was now 'good' would that then mean that, from that point on (the point when God made the announcement), the 'Truth' was that 'good' was now 'evil' and 'evil' was now 'good'?!

continued...

 

[Simonline]

Do you understand the point I'm making? The point that I am making is that true TRUTH is that Good and Evil are not arbitrary. They do not change, ever. This is because Good and Evil are not determined by what God says ("...because I say so!"), Good and Evil are determined according to God's Absolutely Perfect Immutable Nature, and not simply according to what God says. It is God himself who is the absolute unchanging standard that defines both 'Good' and 'Evil'. Nothing that changes can ever define Good and Evil. In order for both Good and Evil to have any real meaning they must be defined by something that is absolutely constant and NEVER changes. The only thing that exists and that is absolutely constant and NEVER changes is God himself (Mal.3:6; Heb,13:8). This is why we have such a thing as a moral absolute - something that is binding on all people, at all times and in all places. Moral absolutes are based exclusively on the absolutely unchanging Nature of God. This is how we are able to declare, for example, that Nazism, Soviet Communism, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (amongst many others) are all morally wrong and evil.



If morality ('good' and 'evil') was determined by human societies (based on the idea of the 'social contract') then what is to stop the strongest group from oppressing (to the point of ethnic cleansing / mass genocide) the minorities and other politically or socially undesirables?! What happens if 'good' and 'evil' are simply the dictates of whoever (or whatever group) happens to be in power and these change according to whoever is able to seize power and replace the last 'administration'. Good and Evil under those circumstances would be absolutely meaningless. Society would degenerate into chaos. This is why, in order to have any real meaning, Good and Evil must be based on an absolute.

2. He CANNOT be overpowered (being the source of all life and power in the universe... any power you have is rightfully God's power... he gave it to you, he can take it away.)

etc.

Sorry, how is this a limitation for God?

B: Immutable... I don't remember anything in the bible saying that... In fact... I believe it was when he was bringing the flood that God remarked that at that point he actually regretted making humans. God DOES have emotions like everyone else... sometimes God is VERY wrathful... usually very peacful and loving, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by immutable.

The term Immutable literally means 'to be incapable of mutation or change' and in this context refers exclusively to God's fundamental Nature as God. That which defines God as God and distinguishes him from all of his creatures (Mal.3:6; Heb.13:8). As I have said elsewhere, the way in which God manifests or reveals himself to his creatures and the way in which God relates to his creatures according to how they behave in relation to him and his absolutely Perfect and Immutable Nature and Character can and does change. God says 'if we sin then he will discipline us, if we do what is right, then he will bless us'. God responds according to our actions in relation to his perfect Nature and Character. God's Perfect Nature and Character is the one universal constant. It NEVER changes (Mal.3:6; Heb.13:8) but the way in which God reveals himself to us and the way in which he relates to us always change according to how we behave. His responses will always be consistent (in accordance with his Perfect Nature and Character (He will never bless us for the same thing for which last week he disciplined us)) but he will either bless us or discipline us according to our behaviour. Now do you understand?

C: Existing outside of time... is rubbish. This is bowing to einsteins garbage theory of special relativity that suggests that time is a 'thing' to be altered and existed in and out of. Time is NOT an object... For the infinite duration the God has existed, time has been ticking.

Not true at all...not even close, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Einstein.



Part of what it means to be a finite creature is that we have to exist in both time and space. As finite creatures, these are our 'environments'. This is so that we can change (the ability to change [to come into existence, to live, to grow up, grow old and die] is what makes us finite). None of that is possible for the Divine Nature.



The Divine Nature has always existed therefore cannot come into existence, the Divine Nature is the One who created time, therefore the Divine Nature must be able to exist outside of time (just like fish exist 'in water' and humans 'on land', in what 'environment' did the Creator exist before he created time (and space)?). Unlike us as finite creatures, the Divine Nature does not need either time or space in order to exist (actually, the Divine Nature is absolutely self-sufficient and therefore needs absolutely nothing).



God is not time and time is not God. Time is somthing that God brought into being for the benefit of his creatures [In actual fact, time is not an actual 'thing' at all, it's simply the way we perceive and understand change and is completely relative to our perception. Time is just an 'understanding' or 'perception' that is built into our constitution as human beings and is no less real for not being tangible]. Confused yet?

1: Where, in the bible. I don't care what priest claims God revealed it to him... I want to see it in the bible... I am a CHRISTIAN, I base my faith upon what JESUS said, and what was said IN THE BIBLE... not any person who claims to know something better than the bible.

You stick tight hold of that principle, it's a damn good principle to lock on to (especially when you actually put it into practise and don't restrict it to your own 'proof-texts').



Although the term Trinity is not found in the Scriptures the teaching is most certainly there (as you well know, since I have spent hours and hours spelling it out to you on this very thread). But if you are starting from the premise that the Trinity is wrong then you will never accept that it's true no matter how much Biblical evidence is brought to your attention (as this thread demonstrates) and not only by me. Whilst I and every other Trinitarian will admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an easy doctrine to understand we will also tell you that any understanding of the Trinity cannot be 'worked out' on the basis of human reason and logic alone. Finite creatures can never hope to comprehend the depths of infinitude and to even imagine so is the height of intellectual folly. Only if God reveals himself to you as he really is will you truely understand who and what he is (1Cor.2:6-16). The best advice I can give you is for you to get down on your knees and petition God unceasingly for revelation of who and what he is (Jer.29:11-14(a)) and don't stop until you get it.

continued...