Search results

What you and I have in common is the belief that God is one person. We don’t agree on who that one person is.

The apple existed (preexisted) only in the Father’s logos before the apple literally was brought into existence.

That’s right. Verse 14 will still say that the Son of God (Jesus) IS that word, logos or it of verse 1 made flesh. The person who existed previously only in the mind of the Father, in his logos, now literally exists.

I haven’t amended anything. I’ve always said it’s the same word. Is that what the Geneva Bible says? He, Jesus, is what the Father’s logos became when it, not he, became incarnate. As I said quite clearly, I connect the incarnation of the word with the begetting, conception and birth of...

God’s word, his thoughts (John 1:1-5) became incarnate (John 1:14). Yes. It came about from an incident I had almost 20 years ago on an online discussion forum where I used my given name. A trinitarian member of the forum discovered the city I lived in at the time and publicly announced that...

No. In all circumstances, I’m always and only one man. My thoughts are my word.

“His answer will be to say John was talking about a different “word” in vs 14 than the “word” he was talking about in vs 1.” Despite the fact that I said unequivocally (in post #342) that it was the same word? Reading comprehension isn’t the issue. I know you don’t understand me; I don’t...

Short answer: someone who is not God.

I don’t think so. If we did, we would all be saying the same thing. The Geneva Bible translators, for example, wouldn’t have translated logos as “it” if the translators had understood John to have been speaking about the Son in the prologue. John was writing in the prologue about the Father’s...

God is someone who gave the revelation to Jesus; not Jesus.

The Greek word logos is equivalent to the Hebrew word davar. Davar occurs over 1400 times in the Old Testament and it never means “son,” nor does it mean “person”. John knew that.

Yes. Logos.

How does what Dr. Brown wrote about the misreading of John 1:1 deny verse 14, which Dr. Brown (and I) believe is true? The word “Son” obviously doesn’t appear in John 1:1. It’s not what John wrote. If he had written it, every translation we have would have rendered it that way.

An acquaintance of mine, the late trinitarian scholar Dr. Colin Brown, wrote an article in 1991 that was published in a journal called Ex Auditu - “It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: ‘In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with...

Yes. I’ve been discussing it this morning in another thread with @RLT63. There is no scenario where Jesus could be a trinitarian. If / since the Trinity cannot be Jesus’ God then the Trinity cannot be my God.

I think there are many reasons why “trinitarians” believe things about the Trinity which aren’t taught in trinitarianism - things which expressly are prohibited in trinitarian theology. We must all take responsibility for whatever it is that we believe, but I place the lion’s share of the blame...

Sorry about that. It was never my intention to drive you crazy. Acronyms are common in all technical fields, including theology.

It’s more than just a “fine point,” isn’t it? “Love the Lord your God with all of your …” (Mark 12:30). Identity is critical. Who exactly is this God whom Jesus confirms his followers must love? A lot is riding on knowing who that God is.

I would still be a trinitarian if Jesus had ever been a trinitarian.

From the 2022 State of Theology study, sponsored by Ligonier Ministries - “Despite a majority of Americans affirming a Trinitarian God with three divine persons, most still aren’t sure how that applies to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Slightly more than half (55%) believe Jesus is the first and...