The Trinity definition

[Mattathias]

well this is the firt time hearing that the Word of God is the Father, (which is correct), but not in this scripture, but there is a first time for every thing.

ok, if you say that the "Word" in John 1:1-3 is the Father, then I have one question, 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."

so according to YOU, the word/Father was made flesh right?

No. The Father’s logos (“it”) was made flesh (“he”). My response will perhaps be better understood by considering how the Tyndale translation (and others like it) renders the prologue in John’s Gospel.

now this, Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." so tell us how was the Father in heaven and yet on earth at the same time, and understand, he who was in that flesh on earth was in a G2758 κενόω kenoo state.

your answer please.

The Father was not on earth at the same time he was in heaven.

 

[101G]

No. The Father’s logos (“it”) was made flesh (“he”).



The Father was not on earth at the same time he was in heaven.

did you not say the word was the Eather, and the sriptures states cleaely... 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."

and this dwelling was on earth. care to explain this then?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Mattathias]

did you not say the word was the Eather, and the sriptures states cleaely... 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."

and this dwelling was on earth. care to explain this then?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

I attempted to explain it by editing my post. I think my meaning will be more comprehensible by examining how the Tyndale translation renders the prologue.

It may also be helpful for you to know that, while I’m a Christian, I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian.

 

[101G]

I attempted to explain it by editing my post. I think my meaning will be clarified by examine the Tyndale translation.

ok, good, while editing, or maybe you need to edit again, take a look at John 3:13. while the Word, Jesus, was on earth talking to Nicodemus, at the very same time was in heaven, please take this verse into account in your editing or re-editing.

thanks very much.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[DNB]

I also detected an ingrained early age indoctrination...hard to break away from it I guess

Yes, it seems very much so, to the point I find him very irrational in his both his exegesis and exposition. I trust that you saw the post where he claimed that his young children can 'fully defend' the doctrine also? But, he blatantly omitted the fact of whether they can actually understand it, or not (or, at least, these are the implications of his statement).
Meaning, this is the next generation of early age indoctrination, how difficult it will be to get them to see the folly in their beliefs, or at least, another point of view....

 

[ChristisGod]

Maybe not a test per se, but one's convictions are derived from their theological understanding. Yes, I know that you are studious and well informed on these issues, I just don't think that you contended Christophany's position accurately. For, I agree with him that how one perceives God and Jesus, and the dynamics of God's Atonement, is contingent upon one's salvation. Of course, I think that his own words will come against him on Judgment Day, as he feels about us, but that singular point that he is making, to me, is accurate and should be heeded by all, as such. There is a reason that we must profess God's Word in accuracy, that's all I'm saying, and I believe that he was saying. ...other than that, don't listen to any other word that he says .

We are in agreement that it is salvific in nature and we cannot both be right. One of us is on the wrong side of salvation concerning the person of Christ.

 

[APAK]

Yes, it seems very much so, to the point I find him very irrational in his both his exegesis and exposition. I trust that you saw the post where he claimed that his young children can 'fully defend' the doctrine also? But, he blatantly omitted the fact of whether they can actually understand it, or not (or, at least, these are the implications of his statement).
Meaning, this is the next generation of early age indoctrination, how difficult it will be to get them to see the folly in their beliefs, or at least, another point of view....

I missed that one....the children have also been sternly indoctrinate in his religion, aye

 

[Mattathias]

ok, good, while editing, or maybe you need to edit again, take a look at John 3:13. while the Word, Jesus, was on earth talking to Nicodemus, at the very same time was in heaven, please take this verse into account in your editing or re-editing.

thanks very much.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

My edit consisted of adding a comment on the Tyndale translation. I’m placing a link to the translation in this post.

Gospel of John: Chapter 1 - TyndaleBible.com

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Maybe not a test per se, but one's convictions are derived from their theological understanding. Yes, I know that you are studious and well informed on these issues, I just don't think that you contended Christophany's position accurately. For, I agree with him that how one perceives God and Jesus, and the dynamics of God's Atonement, is contingent upon one's salvation. Of course, I think that his own words will come against him on Judgment Day, as he feels about us, but that singular point that he is making, to me, is accurate and should be heeded by all, as such. There is a reason that we must profess God's Word in accuracy, that's all I'm saying, and I believe that he was saying. ...other than that, don't listen to any other word that he says .

We are in agreement that it is salvific in nature and we cannot both be right. One of us is on the wrong side of salvation concerning the person of Christ.

It is an irony: if I were to adopt either of your positions that salvation-depends-on-your-theology-test-score, then I would then have to say that:
"@Christophany you're a damned non-Christian because you misunderstand scripture and flunk that test" and
"@DNB you're a damned non-Christian because you misunderstand scripture and flunk that test".

Honestly, that's yet another reason I so completely disagree with that position. Yes, I deeply believe that you're both wrong on some theological aspect- that's not being downplayed. But I also can see positive aspects from the light of God in both of you and relationship with Christ, which is also can't be denied. And I can't ethically adopt logic which demands I deny that.

 

[101G]

My edit consisted of adding a comment on the Tyndale translation. I’m placing a link to the translation in this post.

Gospel of John: Chapter 1 - TyndaleBible.com

I didn't see the edit page, but in the Tyndale Bible if the Word, The Father’s logos (“it”) was God and you're saying that ("it") was the Father's logos, so why then did John say the Word, (IT) was God then?
but I have more question,

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[DNB]

We are in agreement that it is salvific in nature and we cannot both be right. One of us is on the wrong side of salvation concerning the person of Christ.

Absolutely!

 

[DNB]

It is an irony: if I were to adopt either of your positions that salvation-depends-on-your-theology-test-score, then I would then have to say that:
"@Christophany you're a damned non-Christian because you misunderstand scripture and flunk that test" and
"@DNB you're a damned non-Christian because you misunderstand scripture and flunk that test".

Honestly, that's yet another reason I so completely disagree with that position. Yes, I deeply believe that you're both wrong on some theological aspect- that's not being downplayed. But I also can see positive aspects from the light of God in both of you and relationship with Christ, which is also can't be denied. And I can't ethically adopt logic which demands I deny that.

@Christophany
Fair enough JD. Then, may I ask, are there any parameters to salvation - obviously your not a universalist? Or, at least, what is the minimum understanding, and subsequent conviction, required in order to gain redemption?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

@Christophany
Fair enough JD. Then, may I ask, are there any parameters to salvation - obviously your not a universalist? Or, at least, what is the minimum understanding, and subsequent conviction, required in order to gain redemption?

I'm not a universalist: there are MANY whom reject the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not have faith in Him. And are hence without His salvation. Rather they love their own selves-- their egos, their riches, their sins, etc.

Good theology helps foster faith and discipleship in Christ. But it never replaces faith. You don't get into heaven because you ace a theology scantron, or vise versa. There are many very studied individuals whom sit in Christian pews, but are greatly lacking in real discipleship. Conversely, many wonderful children whom are fantastic saved Christian- despite their lack anything remotely resembling a theology degree of any sort. But they have truly given their hearts to Him.

That's why I can acknowledge your own standing as a Christian: because I see how you love Him and have give your heart to Him. Even though I find your theological understanding to be very lacking. Likewise with @Christophany , though obviously his and my theological views are much closer in this area.

 

[justbyfaith]

Minority text do not make the rule.

It is speaking of a valid translation of the word "and" in holy scripture...not a minority text.

John 8 24 does not say that.

24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”

it says you must believe Jesus is "he".

you guys have a really bad habit of this, you cant just insert what ever you want into the scripture, the Almighty says not to do that.

1) the word "he" is in italics; so that Jesus is really saying, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

2) Even if you include the "he" there, the "he" is defined by what it says later in John 8:27.

Well, you see, that's exactly where my perplexity lay, how can someone who is clearly as studied as yourself, succumb to such inherently bad hermeneutics and exegesis?

At least you admit that he is utilizing exegesis and not claiming that it is eisegesis. That should tell you something....that he is not reading into the text what he wants it to say; but rather he is extracting the true meaning of scripture from the text.

the Christ, Son of the Most High, but no mention that Jesus is the Most High.

In saying that Jesus is the Son, he is saying that He is "The everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6). In order to dispute this, you have to change the text that we find in the kjv not once, but twice. I suppose that you can go to other translations to have them tell you what your itching ears want to hear. But in the long run, you will be turned aside to fables (such as the idea that Jesus dies on a torture stake rather than being crucified).

And, even when they try to apply it to Exodus 3:14, grammatically it doesn't work, nor make any sense '...before Abraham was, YHWH...'. Therefore, in order to support their position, Jesus would've had to say '...before Abraham was, I am 'I am that I am'...' or '...before Abraham was, I am 'I am'...'

In Exodus 3:14, God did not only say that "I am that I am" he also said, "thus you shall say to the children of Israel...I AM hath sent me to you."

So then, Jesus does not have to say it twice in order for it to be a valid claim of being the great I AM.

You will have one heck of a time explaining your god-man theory then - you won't even try.

Jesus will be His advocate with the Father...so He won't have to try.

People can say that I am not, or that you are not, a Christian because we do not embrace all of their beliefs as our own, but what is that to me? What is that to you?

It is not that we are saying that "you must believe what I believe" as though my beliefs dictated what everyone is supposed to believe. We get our beliefs from holy scripture...and the holy scriptures teach that if anyone denies the fact that Jesus is the great I AM, they will die in their sins. So it is the Bible that dictates the fact that people who deny Christ's Deity are not born again....since no one who is born again will ever come into condemnation (John 5:24 (kjv)).

These then are the anti-Christ spirited humans who brazenly dare to make my Christ a 3-headed monster, a heathen god for idol worship...judgment is coming indeed..Amen

It is those who deny Christ's Deity who will die in their sins (John 8:24)...Amen.

 

[justbyfaith]

If a person can never understand or embrace some kind of a Trintarian doctrine is he definitely lost then?

I think that it is the doctrine of Christ's Deity that is essential to salvation (John 8:24).

Many turn away from Christ for many reasons.

I, for one, adamantly object to the idea that a person salvation depends on their ability be able to pass your (or anyone else’s) theology test. No. Salvation is a matter or FAITH and relationship with God. No academic knowledge - don’t try to add more requirements.

If someone comes across the knowledge that Jesus is the Lord God but rejects that knowledge, it indicates that they do not have the Spirit of Christ. For, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth. Therefore if they cannot say this, they do not have the Spirit of truth...and you need to consider that they may have accepted a false Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (see 2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

Therefore amadeus, despite the fact that I agree with the basal point of your argument, I will have the audacity to say that one cannot be saved by believing in a triune God, nor a god-man messiah.

Yet you have no scripture to substantiate your statement; while we have scripture to substantiate our statement that a man cannot be saved apart from believing in the Deity of Christ.

Could you please address mine?

Does your mistaken facts about Jason somehow mean that you somehow don't have any relationship with Jason at all? Or that some fake doppelganger Jason was grilling you all those hamburgers all of those years?

It would make Jason a liar....and therefore he cannot be the Christ. So then, it would indicate that the person you have a relationship with is not the true Christ.

We are in agreement that it is salvific in nature and we cannot both be right. One of us is on the wrong side of salvation concerning the person of Christ.

Why did @DNB like this statement? Either he is happy about not having salvation himself or else he relishes the idea that you are not saved. It reminds me of scripture (if the latter):

Tit 3:3, For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

 

[ChristisGod]

I think that it is the doctrine of Christ's Deity that is essential to salvation (John 8:24).



If someone comes across the knowledge that Jesus is the Lord God but rejects that knowledge, it indicates that they do not have the Spirit of Christ. For, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth. Therefore if they cannot say this, they do not have the Spirit of truth...and you need to consider that they may have accepted a false Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (see 2 Corinthians 11:3-4).



Yet you have no scripture to substantiate your statement; while we have scripture to substantiate our statement that a man cannot be saved apart from believing in the Deity of Christ.



It would make Jason a liar....and therefore he cannot be the Christ. So then, it would indicate that the person you have a relationship with is not the true Christ.



Why did @DNB like this statement? Either he is happy about not having salvation himself or else he relishes the idea that you are not saved. It reminds me of scripture (if the latter):

Tit 3:3, For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

He is smart enough to know we both cannot be right and agrees that one of us is wrong regarding the Person of Christ. We both believe its salvific. Of course you and I know the Deity of Christ is essential to salvation whereas he believes it disqualifies one from salvation as a unitarian.

 

[justbyfaith]

Of course you and I know the Deity of Christ is essential to salvation whereas he believes it disqualifies one from salvation as a unitarian.

Yet it would seem that he has no scripture to substantiate this point of view.

 

[ChristisGod]

Yet it would seem that he has no scripture to substantiate this point of view.

agreed !

 

[jaybird]

1) the word "he" is in italics; so that Jesus is really saying, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

2) Even if you include the "he" there, the "he" is defined by what it says later in John 8:27.

maybe your right, lets put it to the test and see. lets switch I Am for Most High and see how it works

"Unless you believe that Most High, you will die in your sins."

does that sound right to you? none the less it does not sound at all like Jesus is saying "I am the Most High. for Jesus to be saying what you want Him to say you need the phrase I Am I Am or I Am the I Am which would mean "I am the Most High"

John 8 27 is Jesus talking about "He" but Jesus does not claim that He is "He", He says that "He" has sent Him. Jesus was sent by someone, the Father. you dont send your self.

In saying that Jesus is the Son, he is saying that He is "The everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6). In order to dispute this, you have to change the text that we find in the kjv not once, but twice. I suppose that you can go to other translations to have them tell you what your itching ears want to hear. But in the long run, you will be turned aside to fables (such as the idea that Jesus dies on a torture stake rather than being crucified).

the Most High is not the "son of" anyone, He is the Most High, there is no other above Him, thats what "Most High" means, it literally means the highest one.
"son of the Most High" can mean any heavenly being. Psalm 82 has the Fathers entire court full of the sons of the Most High, they are not the Most High, they are being judged by the Most High. Most High and son of the Most High are two different things.

It is those who deny Christ's Deity who will die in their sins (John 8:24)...Amen.

there is no such command in scripture and John 8:24 does not make that command. John 20 30-31 even puts emphasis on what you need to believe about who Jesus is, it does not mention Jesus is the Most High.

the Apostles agree on this as well as all the early church fathers. the idea that Jesus was the Most High and /or co equal to the Father did not exist until after the roman takeover, almost 400 years after Jesus. and it all went down hill after that.

 

[APAK]

It is speaking of a valid translation of the word "and" in holy scripture...not a minority text.



1) the word "he" is in italics; so that Jesus is really saying, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

2) Even if you include the "he" there, the "he" is defined by what it says later in John 8:27.



At least you admit that he is utilizing exegesis and not claiming that it is eisegesis. That should tell you something....that he is not reading into the text what he wants it to say; but rather he is extracting the true meaning of scripture from the text.



In saying that Jesus is the Son, he is saying that He is "The everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6). In order to dispute this, you have to change the text that we find in the kjv not once, but twice. I suppose that you can go to other translations to have them tell you what your itching ears want to hear. But in the long run, you will be turned aside to fables (such as the idea that Jesus dies on a torture stake rather than being crucified).



In Exodus 3:14, God did not only say that "I am that I am" he also said, "thus you shall say to the children of Israel...I AM hath sent me to you."

So then, Jesus does not have to say it twice in order for it to be a valid claim of being the great I AM.



Jesus will be His advocate with the Father...so He won't have to try.



It is not that we are saying that "you must believe what I believe" as though my beliefs dictated what everyone is supposed to believe. We get our beliefs from holy scripture...and the holy scriptures teach that if anyone denies the fact that Jesus is the great I AM, they will die in their sins. So it is the Bible that dictates the fact that people who deny Christ's Deity are not born again....since no one who is born again will ever come into condemnation (John 5:24 (kjv)).



It is those who deny Christ's Deity who will die in their sins (John 8:24)...Amen.

Do you think that changing scripture at will to suit your needs impresses me? It does! It clearly and equivocally reinforces and shows your disdain and disgust for the sacred and holy writ of the Father in order to impress and serve your 3-headed god idol.