Trinity --- true or false?

Status
Not open for further replies.

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Because there is no indication whatsoever to interpret the verse figuratively. John 1:1 CLEARLY indicates ho logos is a person as much as God is. "The word was with God and the word was God."

If the word is to be taken allegorically then so is God in the passage.
Why? you take word literally and flesh figuratively in john 1.14. you take flesh to represent Jesus. Jesus is more than just flesh. I don't know what kind of figurative sense john 1.1 is but i know the meaning. the word was unto God, means it points to god, the word was god, is a predicate nominative, meaning god modifys the word. just as god is not literally love in "god is love" but rather love is a predicate nominative modifying god. love is a big attribute of god is the meaning of god is love and 'the word was god" means that the word has a divine quality about it in that it is god's word and that god backs up his word so that his word does not come back void to it because god is there where his word is to back it up. NOt god is his word and his word is a being and god the father is abeing and god the son is another being oh and all of um together add up to 1 being. that is the illogic of your literal intepretation of john 1.1 and condemns it as false. God's word is not nonsensical . only man's interpetations, such as yours here, are illogical. God's word makes sense.
johnd said:
Obviously it is not to be taken figuratively and therefore the word in verse 14 refers to the person in verse 1.

I'll do you one better.

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Is that to be taken literally? No. But the existence of God is not to be called into question by such a figure of speech. He is no less God by the use of this figure of speech. And the final death knell in your line of reasoning is the verse in question:

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

The word was God.
The word was WITH God.
actually the word translated with is the greek word pros which means towards or to, or unto. It is translated either to or unto 543 times, it is only translated with 43 times. And I believe the meaning clearly demands it be translated as unto or towards, for the word of god does point towards or unto god. but at any rate if the word is with god it cannot be god, and if the word is god it cannot be with god. you cant be with your self. Another clear indicator of the figurativeness of john chapter 1, contrary to your assertion that there is none. Unfortunately logic doesn't enter the picture in interperting john 1 .1 literally, thus you can assert that there are no indicators for you reject the logic indicators i just pointed out.

johnd said:
You are simply refusing to believe the obvious points being made by the text.
you refuse to accept the illogic of your beliefs which i have pointed out. How can god be with himself? can you see that doesn't make sense to say word (who you say is god) is with god and there is only one god when you just named two different gods. Again your illogical statements condemn your doctrine as being false.
johnd said:
Such closed minded interpolation leads to every assorted misinterpretation.
I haven't changed scripture. havinga figurative interpretation of a verse of scripture isn't changing scripture. you are playing very loose with the facts here.
johnd said:
If you want to pick and choose what you believe the truth to be then you are elevating yourself or your beliefs above God. ['quote] I don't pick and choose what I believe I believe the whole bible, just because i have a figurative interpretation of john 1.14 doesnt mean i pick and choose what I believe. your assertion is absurd.

johnd said:
In that case you might as well pick a more self-serving faith than Christianity to use as a mask. Because all who disbelieve the God of the Bible are going to hell.
I know Jesus and God the Father intimately. You haven't demonstrated anything that prooves that i disbelieve the b ible. you jump from me having a figurative interpretation of john 1.14 to "2ducklow doesn't believe the b ible and is going to hell." that is totally ridiculous. I believe you to be a christian because you believe Jesus is the son of god and b ecause you are born again, in fact i accept everyone who is born again , no matter what else they might believe , as a brother in christ. What scripture says "unless you believe john 1.14 literally you are condemoned to hell?" tell me i want to know.
 
Upvote 0

johnd

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2003
7,257
394
God bless.
Visit site
✟9,564.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Why? you take word literally and flesh figuratively in john 1.14. you take flesh to represent Jesus.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

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

The rest of your argument is moot until you explain why the Bible (never mind yours truly) indicates the Word is a person in fact the Word is God... who became a flesh and blood man.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

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

The rest of your argument is moot until you explain why the Bible (never mind yours truly) indicates the Word is a person in fact the Word is God... who became a flesh and blood man.

Indirectly,I believe I have already answered this question in my previous post to you. Obviously you do not. All i will say here is that the bible does not indicate that the word is a person. Sometimes the word is personified, as is the case in john 1.14 but personifing God's word doesn't make it a person. The bible also says such things as "my soul doth magnify the Lord." soul is personified, given human qualities, but Mary's soul was not a person. Saying the word is personified in john 1.14 makes logical sense, saying what god says turned into a clump of flesh is not logical and makes no sense, hence the figurative interpetation is the correct one.
 
Upvote 0
D

DarkGreenMind

Guest
Also, that the doctrine of the Trinity was confirmed at Constantinople is true insofar as it goes. But Trinitarianism, even if that word wasn't used until Tertullian, really is pretty orthodox. Arius didn't argue that he had tradition on his side. His main contention was that Trinitarianism was so incoherent that it would likely slip into Sabellianism.

Tertullian's trinity was not the trinity of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. According to Tertullain the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father; in the Beginning the Father existed alone and the Son and the Spirit were generated later as portions of the whole, the Father being the whole of the Deity.

The main point of Arius was that the Son had a beginning of his existence. Indeed, in the Scriptures (Micah 5:2) the Messiah is declared to have a beginning, an origin in time:

Whose comings forth [are] of old, from the days of antiquity. (Young's Literal Translation)

Whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. (JPS Tanakh)


That Christ has a beginning of existence - this is what the "orthodox" trinitarians rejected, saying that Christ was "co-unbegotten", "begotten withou birth", etc.
Monotheism is based on the belief that there is only one being that is without beginning and doesn not originate in anything else. To state anything else would be godless.


The Son was generated by the Father as a new, separate being of its own kind and that's what Arius meant by the expression "made out of nothing". "Nothing" = "non-being, non-existence". This means that he is not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. But contrary to Tertullian, Arius rejected the idea that the Son was "a portion" or "opperation" of God.

"Orthodox" trinitarianism teaches that the Son never came into existence and that he is "eternally begotten" not by the free will of the Father, but "by nature". This concept makes God subject to necessity; according to the Trinity doctrine the person of the Father is conditioned by the "divine essence". Early christian authors (prior to Nicaea) clearly stated that God generated his Son by an act of his free will, not "by nature". This is exactly what Arius believed too, against Athanasius.

Arius viewed God as a single being, not as some abstract "divine essence". It is not "divine nature" that makes the Father the God of the universe. Early christian authors (in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) wrote that men could become gods trough obedience to God's will expressed in his commandments by the efforts of their free will, and that Christ was god but not God Most High. This teachings are alien to modern "orthodoxy" and the popular theology of Christendom today would label them "heresies".

The connection between God and the Son was a relationship of two freely acting distinct beings. Arius is said to be interested mainly in creation rather than salvtion. But I don't agree with that view. Arius viewed the sinless life of Christ as a result of his free choice to obey God's will. So this doctrine has a great soteriological significance too. (Arius and Pelagius would make a great team. ;) )

In my opinion it was the Arian party that defended the traditional view on God and Christ of Christianity. Maybe the only innovation Arians made was to use the word "creature" for explaining the way he proceeded from the Father. But there is some Scriptural basis for such a term.

Who was faithful to him that appointed [Greek poihsa = made] him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. (Hebrews 3:2, KJV)

The Greek word translated "appointed" actually means made. So, Biblically, it can be said that Christ is a "creation" (poihma in Greek).






 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Tertullian's trinity was not the trinity of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. According to Tertullain the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father; in the Beginning the Father existed alone and the Son and the Spirit were generated later as portions of the whole, the Father being the whole of the Deity.

The main point of Arius was that the Son had a beginning of his existence. Indeed, in the Scriptures (Micah 5:2) the Messiah is declared to have a beginning, an origin in time:

Whose comings forth [are] of old, from the days of antiquity. (Young's Literal Translation)

Whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. (JPS Tanakh)


That Christ has a beginning of existence - this is what the "orthodox" trinitarians rejected, saying that Christ was "co-unbegotten", "begotten withou birth", etc.
Monotheism is based on the belief that there is only one being that is without beginning and doesn not originate in anything else. To state anything else would be godless.


The Son was generated by the Father as a new, separate being of its own kind and that's what Arius meant by the expression "made out of nothing". "Nothing" = "non-being, non-existence". This means that he is not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. But contrary to Tertullian, Arius rejected the idea that the Son was "a portion" or "opperation" of God.

"Orthodox" trinitarianism teaches that the Son never came into existence and that he is "eternally begotten" not by the free will of the Father, but "by nature". This concept makes God subject to necessity; according to the Trinity doctrine the person of the Father is conditioned by the "divine essence". Early christian authors (prior to Nicaea) clearly stated that God generated his Son by an act of his free will, not "by nature". This is exactly what Arius believed too, against Athanasius.

Arius viewed God as a single being, not as some abstract "divine essence". It is not "divine nature" that makes the Father the God of the universe. Early christian authors (in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) wrote that men could become gods trough obedience to God's will expressed in his commandments by the efforts of their free will, and that Christ was god but not God Most High. This teachings are alien to modern "orthodoxy" and the popular theology of Christendom today would label them "heresies".

The connection between God and the Son was a relationship of two freely acting distinct beings. Arius is said to be interested mainly in creation rather than salvtion. But I don't agree with that view. Arius viewed the sinless life of Christ as a result of his free choice to obey God's will. So this doctrine has a great soteriological significance too. (Arius and Pelagius would make a great team. ;) )

In my opinion it was the Arian party that defended the traditional view on God and Christ of Christianity. Maybe the only innovation Arians made was to use the word "creature" for explaining the way he proceeded from the Father. But there is some Scriptural basis for such a term.

Who was faithful to him that appointed [Greek poihsa = made] him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. (Hebrews 3:2, KJV)

The Greek word translated "appointed" actually means made. So, Biblically, it can be said that Christ is a "creation" (poihma in Greek).
Interesting point about Heb. 3.2, appears to be another translators attempt at a cover up.

Heb 3:2Who is faithful to him that made him, as was also Moses in all his house.Darby
However it appears Darby is faithfull to the greek on this one.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Tertullian's trinity was not the trinity of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. According to Tertullain the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father; in the Beginning the Father existed alone and the Son and the Spirit were generated later as portions of the whole, the Father being the whole of the Deity.

I don't recall him saying that the Son was generated after the beginning so I'd appreciate a citation. One of the implications, however, of holding that the Three comprise the whole of the Deity, and yet two of them being not co-eternal or co-equal is to say that there is both change and inequality in God. Thus, even if Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity was not as developed as the Athanasian understanding, one would have to argue that the Athanasian one does not reasonably follow. Tertullian's assertion is that the Three are one in Substance but not in Person. From there, there are multiple lines of reasoning that point to an uncreated Word. Most essentially: 1. God is unchanging in eternity (incidentally, this also leads - I think - to the doctrine that the Father always begets, though this is much later) and 2. That the Word, being God, is uncreated or God is not wise from eternity (a similar point is made with the Spirit and God's power).


The main point of Arius was that the Son had a beginning of his existence. Indeed, in the Scriptures (Micah 5:2) the Messiah is declared to have a beginning, an origin in time:

Whose comings forth [are] of old, from the days of antiquity. (Young's Literal Translation)

Whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. (JPS Tanakh)


That Christ has a beginning of existence - this is what the "orthodox" trinitarians rejected, saying that Christ was "co-unbegotten", "begotten withou birth", etc.
Monotheism is based on the belief that there is only one being that is without beginning and doesn not originate in anything else. To state anything else would be godless.

This is a very good argument. However, I would argue that this passage has telescoping meanings - as do most biblical prophecies. The first meaning (and I suspect this is the meaning you would get from any orthodox Jew) is that Micah references the throne of David and even his ancestors in the line of promised redemption. The second meaning, taken from a figurative sense, is that the Messiah's origins are, in fact, divine in nature. But even if I didn't use the term, "origin," as part of a figure the word is not so condemnable, as Trinitarians speak of an order within the godhead even though we do not imply hierarchy. "Origin" is only contrary to Trinitarian theology when it means something other than "source" and implies that there is something essentially prior to or greater than it.

I emphasize the importance of this interpretation because if the Messiah is not God, Himself, then I have trouble with certain passages like Hosea 13:4 in which God asserts that there is no savior besides Him. How do you take such language? How is it reconciled with the notion that the Messiah is a created being, distinct from God (as per your interpretation of Micah)?

The Son was generated by the Father as a new, separate being of its own kind and that's what Arius meant by the expression "made out of nothing". "Nothing" = "non-being, non-existence". This means that he is not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. But contrary to Tertullian, Arius rejected the idea that the Son was "a portion" or "opperation" of God.

"Orthodox" trinitarianism teaches that the Son never came into existence and that he is "eternally begotten" not by the free will of the Father, but "by nature". This concept makes God subject to necessity; according to the Trinity doctrine the person of the Father is conditioned by the "divine essence". Early christian authors (prior to Nicaea) clearly stated that God generated his Son by an act of his free will, not "by nature". This is exactly what Arius believed too, against Athanasius.

Again, could you provide a citation for the generation of the Son? Whether the Word freely proceeds from the Father is not a question I've considered. Whether the Word is eternally with the Father is. Would you say that there was when God's Word and wisdom was created?

Arius viewed God as a single being, not as some abstract "divine essence". It is not "divine nature" that makes the Father the God of the universe. Early christian authors (in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) wrote that men could become gods trough obedience to God's will expressed in his commandments by the efforts of their free will, and that Christ was god but not God Most High. This teachings are alien to modern "orthodoxy" and the popular theology of Christendom today would label them "heresies".

I don't think so. Remember that even Athanasius is famous for saying, "God became man that we might become God." I think the opposition you suggest is the effort to distinguish the being of Man from the being of God, not a refutation of the patristic views of salvation.

The connection between God and the Son was a relationship of two freely acting distinct beings. Arius is said to be interested mainly in creation rather than salvtion. But I don't agree with that view. Arius viewed the sinless life of Christ as a result of his free choice to obey God's will. So this doctrine has a great soteriological significance too. (Arius and Pelagius would make a great team. ;) )

In my opinion it was the Arian party that defended the traditional view on God and Christ of Christianity. Maybe the only innovation Arians made was to use the word "creature" for explaining the way he proceeded from the Father. But there is some Scriptural basis for such a term.

Who was faithful to him that appointed [Greek poihsa = made] him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. (Hebrews 3:2, KJV)

The Greek word translated "appointed" actually means made. So, Biblically, it can be said that Christ is a "creation" (poihma in Greek).

Indeed, I would never argue that Christ was not made. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed says that when he came down from Heaven he was made man. Certainly, he was not human from eternity and from either of our perspectives he at least has a human beginning. It is entirely appropriate language, in a Trinitarian sense, to say that Christ was made. The question is whether the Word was made or whether there was when the Father was and the Son was not.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
There is no doubt that the flesh and blood body of Jesus had a beginning. The Spirit within that body is as eternal as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Your point is moot.
Abba Elohim is holy, is Spirit;
Yahshua (Jesus) is holy, is Spirit first before being flesh and blood;
holy is always an adjective, never a title and never a name.
 
Upvote 0

johnd

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2003
7,257
394
God bless.
Visit site
✟9,564.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Abba Elohim is holy, is Spirit;
Yahshua (Jesus) is holy, is Spirit first before being flesh and blood;
holy is always an adjective, never a title and never a name.

So rather than a TRIunity are you suggesting a DUality?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

johnd

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2003
7,257
394
God bless.
Visit site
✟9,564.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Neither; bouth terms you suggest/use are man or demon origin, not from Yhwh.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.

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

John 1:1 speaks of a time before the incarnation in verse 14 when God the Word was with God. Presuming you do not believe the Gospel of John is demon inspired or from man, how do you deny the fact that the Bible reveals there are at least two persons of Spirit in the Godhead?
 
Upvote 0

HisWordIsMySword

Senior Member
Oct 1, 2006
793
21
Ohio
Visit site
✟16,102.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
John 1:1 speaks of a time before the incarnation in verse 14 when God the Word was with God. Presuming you do not believe the Gospel of John is demon inspired or from man, how do you deny the fact that the Bible reveals there are at least two persons of Spirit in the Godhead?

Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Father. The Father begat the Son in the beginning, a life unto himself. John 5:26

Many have been taught the Son was not begotten of the Father until he came in the flesh. This is contrary to the Word of God.

For all things were spoken into existance by the Father through his Word, his only begotten Son. It is such a blessing to know that even before the creation of man, God had his salvation all ready in place, already established.

Many do not understand John.

In the beginning was the Word. God the Father has no beginning. Jesus is the beginning and the end of God's plan of salvation for mankind. He is the Alpha, the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and end.

And the Word was with God. God the Father was with the Son and the Son was with the Father.

And the Word was God. The Father created all things by the Son, through the Son through the ministry of his Holy Spirit. The Son was given the fullness of the Godhead, making him God over all of creation. For the Son is the expressed image of the Father and does nothing of his own will, but only that of the Father. So it is not robbery to call the Son God. For even the Father refers in Hebrews 1, to the Son as God. So who are we to not do the same.

Yet, there will be a time when the Son relinquishes the authority of the Godhead so that the Father will be all in all. 1 Cor. 15:24-28
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Father. The Father begat the Son in the beginning, a life unto himself. John 5:26

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:ASV

and you get Jesus was begotten of God in outer space before his birth out of that verse? It means Jesus has life cause his father indwells him and gives him his life.
HIsWordIsMySword said:
Many have been taught the Son was not begotten of the Father until he came in the flesh. This is contrary to the Word of God.

For all things were spoken into existance by the Father through his Word, his only begotten Son. It is such a blessing to know that even before the creation of man, God had his salvation all ready in place, already established.
So you base your doctrine that Jesus existed before he existed by your belief that God spoke into existence everything? Did god speak You into existence or where you begotten of your f ather? you make a bold statement of esoteric doctrine with no scriptural support. not good hermenutics.
HIsWord.... said:
Many do not understand John.
very very true, but if people whould focus on one verse, the entire meaning of John would become crystal clear.

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

HisWord.... said:
In the beginning was the Word. God the Father has no beginning. Jesus is the beginning and the end of God's plan of salvation for mankind. He is the Alpha, the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and end.
yea true.
HisWord... said:
And the Word was with God. God the Father was with the Son and the Son was with the Father.
Ever hear of personifications?
HisWord... said:
And the Word was God. The Father created all things by the Son, through the Son through the ministry of his Holy Spirit. The Son was given the fullness of the Godhead, making him God over all of creation. For the Son is the expressed image of the Father and does nothing of his own will, but only that of the Father. So it is not robbery to call the Son God. For even the Father refers in Hebrews 1, to the Son as God. So who are we to not do the same.

Yet, there will be a time when the Son relinquishes the authority of the Godhead so that the Father will be all in all. 1 Cor. 15:24-28
All things are of the Father, Jesus is of the Father, God created all things in , through and for Jesus (according to the unadulterated word of God). If Jesus created all things then it would mean that Jesus created all things in and through and unto himself, thus nothing is of the Father and the bible becomes a lie.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through (other scriptures say also 'in, and unto.')whom are all things, and we through him.

Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;ASV

The bible trumps false theology every time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stranger

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
5,912
143
crying in the wilderness of life
✟7,026.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
Because all who disbelieve the God of the Bible are going to hell.

'Hell' is not such a bad place as men make out , men know nothing in death [Ecclesiastes 9:5] ... all men escape from hell as Jesus did :-

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

MOST men then will die sinners and be resurrected from hell at the seconnd resurrection ... why worry about hell?

God does not seal everyone to be able to cease to sin in this life, but He does promise to baptise all men eventually [Joel 2:28,] but He cannot do this until all men are alive again and we know He has not done it this this life since most men die sinners not knowing all truth of God [John 16:13] :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.