Defending the Trinity

[Wormwood]

Not funny or fair, then. You can do it do it but not everyone is doing it? Only mods? My theology makes you cry? I'm sorry you crybaby, dear.

Jesus never said he is God. Ever. And I agree with him.

No, only me. I recreate the rules of this site like you recreate the rules of the Greek language....to suit my fancy. Ha. You know what's funny, I never really see Jesus say, "I am the Messiah" either. Actually he told people who said that to be quiet and not tell anyone. Maybe he isn't the Christ either according to your criteria. That's disappointing.

Yet youall seem to be doing the same thing here, in principle. 3 Persons of like OUSIA are in fact three Gods of like kind. Tell me more and I will tell you more about heresies in general.

Actually, the word "heresy" means to be at variance with established beliefs or customs. Seeing as how the Church throughout history has agreed on the Trinity in about a half a million different ways....I don't see how I am the heretic here. Maybe this is that funny thing you do with definitions again and you have to explain the real meaning of the word in its original setting.

What does this verse tell you? That the Word of God came not from Jesus as Source, but from the Father as Source. And not from any GodHEAD at all, either, which was a foreign concept to the Jew.

Yeah, the Jews had all this Christian stuff down. They saw it all coming. A man dying on a cross to forgive them of their sins. The Gospel about Jesus being the means of salvation for all who believed. The creation of the Church.... yeah they embraced all of it. The only thing that didn't make sense to them was the incarnation. Everything else was like, "duh."

Um yeah. Correction. 2600 times approx in Bible, 250 times for entities OTHER than God.

Correction. I searched the lemma of the word in the OT in the Hebrew language. I would explain lemma and how this works but I would have to charge you tuition.

Jesus' reference to "Ye are Gods" in Psalms is metaphorical?

HUH? Duh, buh and guh? NOW you have me inside out. How would THAT logic work?

Actually Jesus is using a common rabbinic teaching technique. It goes something like...If this lesser thing is true, how much more is this greater thing be true. Essentially Jesus is saying, "If God portrayed Israel as gods among other cultures, how much more would the Messiah be God among the Israelites." "Liiiiiightbulb" - Despicable Me

Because he too is INTERMEDIATE ELOHIM and NOT YHWH Elohim, sir. Thank you for your understanding, I hope.

Yes I can see it now. "Jesus, how would you rate yourself from 1-10 on the Elohim scale with 1 being a ghost and 10 being YHWH." "Oh, im just an intermediate elohim...kinda like a 5." :blink:

Um, no unitarian taught me this, I investigated online 2.5 years ago from being a Oneness Pentecostal.

Ahhh....the ol' Google education. There's some higher learning. You know what they say, "You get what you pay for."

Don't take no language expert to know this. Just ask nothead.

Perhaps that should read, "knothead."

Out of time. Ill try to answer you later tonight SL. Sorry I missed your question.

 

[Purity]

Purity,

If Jesus didn't exist before He took on flesh...how did He write Psalm 16? Sorry so elementary, but it is the obvious question. I am not trying to act like you are stupid by asking.

SL

Hi SL.

Psalm 16 is a Michtam of David which is an inspired Psalm by God through His Holy Spirit concerning the promised Messiah. Its a Psalm which speaks to the ultimate triumph prophesied in Christ Jesus who was yet to be raised up out of the bowels of David.

In this Psalm I can see the life and writings of David concerning the Lord and his struggle which led to Gethsemane, he must also have been sustained by the inspired words (Psalm 16) that spoke of resurrection and life. Herein lay the peace and joy which to the end were unconquerable. The words which for David spoke of his aspirations and his trust became for Jesus the utterance of Divine intention, unalterable and absolute.

“I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth, my flesh also shall dwell in safety. For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol: neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy; in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Psa. 16:8–11, R.V.).

Its impossible to see how a pre-existent Jesus - a deity at that can first be promised (this makes no sense), secondly, be seen to set One before him who is himself? Why would a god be concerned about his flesh if his is a pre-existent Spirit? How is it possible for Christ to depend upon God for the revealing of a path to life if he is that path from the beginning? And why desire eternal pleasures at his right hand if they in fact in your possession?

I hope this presents a few questions for your consideration.
Purity

he [the Holy Spirit] exhibits intellectual activity (Rom 8:26–27; 1 Cor 2:10–11); he exhibits volitional activity such as choosing or making decisions (Acts 13:2; 15:28; 16:6–7; 20:28; 1 Cor 12:11); he speaks (John 16:13–14; Acts 8:29; 13:2; 1 Tim 4:1; Rev 2:7); he teaches (John 14:26; 1 Cor 2:13); and he experiences emotions or feelings such as love (Rom 15:30) and grief (Eph 4:30; Isa 63:10).

Finally, the Spirit is treated like a person. He may be lied to (Acts 5:3), tempted (Acts 5:9), blasphemed (Matt 12:31), and insulted (Heb 10:29).

Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 285.

If only Jack could see all these attribute are spoken of concerning Yahweh the God of Israel. Its funny that an omnipotent God who is all powerful should be revealed through that Power. Who would think of such things?

You have been given ample evidence that God's spirit refers to His power, which reflects His "mind" in a very broad way. Its that mind thing again!

Ha.
Purity

 

[nothead]

No, only me. I recreate the rules of this site like you recreate the rules of the Greek language....to suit my fancy. Ha. You know what's funny, I never really see Jesus say, "I am the Messiah" either. Actually he told people who said that to be quiet and not tell anyone. Maybe he isn't the Christ either according to your criteria. That's disappointing.

What do you think I am [he] refers to? GOD?? Wow, they were all expecting GOD to come as Moses prophesied?

[SIZE=.75em]15 [/SIZE]The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
[SIZE=.75em]16 [/SIZE]According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
[SIZE=.75em]17 [/SIZE]And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
[SIZE=.75em]18 [/SIZE]I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

You do bring up an interesting question though. It was obvious Jesus did not at first at least from POV of at least one of the gospel writers (Matthew) want anyone to know he was a contender for the Messiah of the line of David. And this seems to be the crux and bridge of faith which all were tested from, not any deity of God at least by the text of gospel.

So then I was confronted early on by the fact that Jesus never said he was God, and why would this be, IF in fact he WAS God?
And the answer was never satisfactorily evident to me in any possible scenario. Since the OT God never seemed to be shy or humble at all regarding the announcing of who He was, and what He was about...and what he had to say to Moses et al especially was very simple and plain:

First the Ten Commands. Then in Deut when the Exodus ended, the Shema. ALL of these plain textual commands which a child could easily understand.

But now in the New Testament a few mysteries occur. As you pointed out, Jesus was not too keen on announcing his Messiahship right away. I mean the CLUES were there, but the pronouncement didn't seem to come until the Cross was looming. And the main MYSTERY which Christ presents us is not for me the Mystery of His Divinity, rather the pentecostal Mystery of the Reborn Man who is Baptized in Spirit and has now the Circumcision of His Heart.

He who EATS the Flesh and DRINKS the Blood of Christ will know the MYSTERY of Jesus, not that he is God Almighty, but he is the Door and Key and Visual IKON of God. This is the reborn man, whether tongues of fire or not, whether jumping and leaping as a doe before it's mother or not.

Amen.

Actually, the word "heresy" means to be at variance with established beliefs or customs. Seeing as how the Church throughout history has agreed on the Trinity in about a half a million different ways....I don't see how I am the heretic here. Maybe this is that funny thing you do with definitions again and you have to explain the real meaning of the word in its original setting.

Oh, since the followers of Constantine the Heretic were then 'orthodox' at least until the next heretic who was pro-Arian considered the Arian heresy of a pre-existent Christ?

Do you see that the majority do not follow the narrow path? This being touted ON THIS FORUM as the ideal?

Yeah, the Jews had all this Christian stuff down. They saw it all coming. A man dying on a cross to forgive them of their sins. The Gospel about Jesus being the means of salvation for all who believed. The creation of the Church.... yeah they embraced all of it. The only thing that didn't make sense to them was the incarnation. Everything else was like, "duh."

Purity knows that the INCARNATION of God ain't terminology of the Bible, sir. Read it again, front to back and then show us where it is. Kinda hafta bend some of those verses don't you? The plain language as primary premise shore nuff ain't in there. Nothead hath spoken.

Correction. I searched the lemma of the word in the OT in the Hebrew language. I would explain lemma and how this works but I would have to charge you tuition.
Actually Jesus is using a common rabbinic teaching technique. It goes something like...If this lesser thing is true, how much more is this greater thing be true. Essentially Jesus is saying, "If God portrayed Israel as gods among other cultures, how much more would the Messiah be God among the Israelites." "Liiiiiightbulb" - Despicable Me

Lesser thing is true? How is the heavenly court a LESSER DEITY in modern terms, sir? Is this like Mormon or JW 'gods' sir? Now who is going off the deep end? Lucky for you I ain't a mod. If I was I might have to consider putting you in the cult section. And close the doors of normal Christian debate.

Yes I can see it now. "Jesus, how would you rate yourself from 1-10 on the Elohim scale with 1 being a ghost and 10 being YHWH." "Oh, im just an intermediate elohim...kinda like a 5." :blink:

No biblically speaking Jesus is over the angels, having been born slightly under them, and under YHWH Elohim the One True God. Any other sprechens would be sprechen of speculation, sir just saying...

I like to keep to less speculation and more sola scriptura, as my German counterpart would say, before his progeny started the Holocaust at least.

Ahhh....the ol' Google education. There's some higher learning. You know what they say, "You get what you pay for."

Not exactly but I did see the major theological trends and was able to make simple common sense determinations. Your evidence is not much sir, and mine overriding. The Great Command alone makes you and yours' paradigms impossible. AS MEANT by God in Deut 6, sir.

Perhaps that should read, "knothead."

oh I spelled it wrong. Sorry but there is a "joey knothead" at another big forum whom I butted heads with a few times.

See notheads clamp on until the Truth comes out, so watch out since you neck seems quite enticing.

 

[Purity]

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

One of the most beautiful prophecies in Scripture.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee" —
In so describing the coming Prophet, the clear statement is made that he would also be a mediator, and therefore a redeemer. Flesh of itself cannot render to God the obedience He requires, so that a Redeemer is necessary.

"And will put My words in his mouth" Christ proclaimed the words and doctrine of Yahweh, as he himself declared. See Isa. 50:4; 51:16; John 3:34; 8:47; 12:47-50; 14:10. How foolish is the doctrine of the Trinity which claims for the Lord equality with his Father. He disclaimed that the words he spake originated from himself, and declared plainly that they came from Yahweh. "And he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him" — This statement also emphasised the subordinate status of the Son. Christ told the people that Moses spoke of him (John 5:45-46). He obeyed the commandment of Yahweh to speak plainly unto the people.

Wormwood the message you are hearing is consistent.

......Why give half of the message!

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My (Yahweh) words which he (Jesus) shall speak in My name"

The Lord Jesus spoke in the name of his Father, but the people failed to effectively hearken. In dishonouring the Son they dishonoured the Father (John 5:23). "I will require it of him" — In his proclamation of the Gospel, Peter warned the Jewish people that if they rejected the teaching of the Lord they would be punished. He did so on the authority of the passage before us (Acts 3:23). Because the people of Israel constituted Yahweh's covenant-people, a responsibility rested upon them to hearken and obey His words. When they failed to do that, the nation was overthrown and the people scattered into all the world.

Imagine how Jesus will view those Christian's who have not listened to the Word of God but heeded the doctrines of men as the Pharisees did during his ministry?

Purity

 

[Wormwood]

So then I was confronted early on by the fact that Jesus never said he was God, and why would this be, IF in fact he WAS God?

Hmmm, my guess would be that although he was in the form of God, he didn't consider equality with God something to hold on to. Instead, he made himself nothing and took the form of a servant who was obedient to death, even death on a cross. If he went around yelling, "I am God, bow before me!" That would kinda do away with the whole, humble servant came to die for sinners mentality that is kinda central to who God is. Soooooo....yeah, if God became flesh and was carnal like us, he would probably do that. But he isn't like us so he didn't.

Do you see that the majority do not follow the narrow path? This being touted ON THIS FORUM as the ideal?

Hmmm, that's sort of taking that passage out of context. I don't think Jesus was speaking of doctrines of Unitarians when he was speaking of the "narrow path." Sigh.

Lesser thing is true? How is the heavenly court a LESSER DEITY in modern terms, sir? Is this like Mormon or JW 'gods' sir? Now who is going off the deep end? Lucky for you I ain't a mod. If I was I might have to consider putting you in the cult section. And close the doors of normal Christian debate.

Uhhh....what?

See notheads clamp on until the Truth comes out, so watch out since you neck seems quite enticing.

Im at a loss for words. This is unusual.


SL,

Is your position that they (Father, Son, Holy spirit) can act individually from each other? They can be one but also separate?

Yes. My position (and what is considered the orthodox position of historical Christianity) is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons with distinct thoughts, emotions and actions. The three are equal in essence but distinct as persons. So in nature and intrinsic characteristics the three are exactly the same, but they exist as separate persons.

 

[Purity]

Yes. My position (and what is considered the orthodox position of historical Christianity) is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons with distinct thoughts, emotions and actions. The three are equal in essence but distinct as persons. So in nature and intrinsic characteristics the three are exactly the same, but they exist as separate persons.

Biblically speaking you cannot supply a verse, passage, chapter or book which deals with this philosophy.

You clearly struggled with Phil 2 and the Trinity was found not to be there.
You clearly struggled with the status of Christ in relation to his Father.

I guess once you swallow the pill everything looks Trinitarian.

Purity

 

[Floyd]

SL,


Quote


Is your position that they (Father, Son, Holy spirit) can act individually from each other? They can be one but also separate?



Wormwood:

Yes. My position (and what is considered the orthodox position of historical Christianity) is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons with distinct thoughts, emotions and actions. The three are equal in essence but distinct as persons. So in nature and intrinsic characteristics the three are exactly the same, but they exist as separate persons.

Exactly!
Floyd.

 

[Purity]

Wormwood,

Reading over your defence of Trinitarian theology I sense a vagueness in your language concerning Phil 2. Your treatment of morphē in Philippians 2 has not been impressive.

So, let’s be specific about what I am actually requesting in your defence:

1.Biblical proof that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God

2.Biblical proof that God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons in one being (“commonly referred to as three hypostases in one ousia")

3.Biblical proof of the co-eternity, co-equality and consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

The burden of evidence lies with you to prove it.

You have witnessed a stronger contextual argument for Phil 2 along with some encouraging exhortation to be of like mind with the Master - a servant. Please no speculation or inference only real evidence is admissible.

In the Masters service.
Purity

 

[nothead]

Hmmm, my guess would be that although he was in the form of God, he didn't consider equality with God something to hold on to. Instead, he made himself nothing and took the form of a servant who was obedient to death, even death on a cross. If he went around yelling, "I am God, bow before me!" That would kinda do away with the whole, humble servant came to die for sinners mentality that is kinda central to who God is. Soooooo....yeah, if God became flesh and was carnal like us, he would probably do that. But he isn't like us so he didn't

.




Your 'morphe' don't fit, since BEING GOD is quite the thing meant for you but it wasn't said at all...these buffer words FORM OF, or IMAGE OF, or INDWELLING FULLNESS OF, and even the unmathematical "EQUALITY OF" are in fact meant to be there for a reason: to BUFFER Jesus from the ontology of God, this being idolatry and blaspheming for the Jew.

Hmmm, that's sort of taking that passage out of context. I don't think Jesus was speaking of doctrines of Unitarians when he was speaking of the "narrow path." Sigh.

You sigh like a girl, sir. Girls sigh. Men get down to the next level. Or die trying. A lotta men have died. Think on it.

Uhhh....what?

Face it, 'gods' in "ye are gods" can only mean subordinate beings in heaven unless you think ALL GODS or 'elohim' in heaven are of like kind. Key: in Jewish cosmology, 'elohim' are of 5 or 6 different kinds. So then Jn 10 cannot make sense, that is Jesus' own logic UNLESS 'elohim' are of lesser kind. And then the question, why does he do this? Well, of course, since he himself is a lesser kind of 'elohim.'

Im at a loss for words. This is unusual.

Sorry for speaking viscerally. For me if it ain't viscerally true, it ain't probably true at all. The gospel is truly blood and guts. So is the Cross. So was Jesus. Amen.

SL,


Yes. My position (and what is considered the orthodox position of historical Christianity) is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons with distinct thoughts, emotions and actions. The three are equal in essence but distinct as persons. So in nature and intrinsic characteristics the three are exactly the same, but they exist as separate persons.

See this paradigm of yours immediately infers three heads, which when put upon the same body or GODHEAD of God, gives us the very images of early Christianity after 381 A.D....

Some of these paintings have a center God with eyeballs intact and two profiled 'faces' sharing an eye with the Father.

But in real life Jesus had his own mouth, and the Father is said in Deut 8:3 YHWH Elohim is said to have HIS. Now you have a problem and must ADD to your statement of 'different thoughts, emotions and actions.'

Thus the artists were orthodox from your POV; they were just taking this paradigm of yours to the end. So what do you think of these, sir? I will link you to one of the ancient trinitarian images of God:

http://christiantrumpetsounding.com/Trinity/Ld%20Is%20One%20God/Ch%201%20Origin%20of%20Trin.htm

We know by common sense Jesus had a set of things DIFFERENT from God the Father. I think you are limiting the actual things which must then be true.

Self-awareness, mind, will, set of character, mouth, eyes, arms, legs. Consciousness.

Now when you SEPARATE these heads of God from the body, and say these are self-autonomous and self-contained, now you have the vaunted early ancient pre-paradigm which came before yours but you and yours are in fact imitating: a pantheon. Gods of like kind.

See how it works? Why even go where angels fear to tread? Once you made Jesus God, all things become dangerous and incomprehensible.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

Reading over your defence of Trinitarian theology I sense a vagueness in your language concerning Phil 2. Your treatment of morphē in Philippians 2 has not been impressive.
So, let’s be specific about what I am actually requesting in your defence:

1.Biblical proof that Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God
2.Biblical proof that God consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons in one being (“commonly referred to as three hypostases in one ousia")
3.Biblical proof of the co-eternity, co-equality and consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
The burden of evidence lies with you to prove it.

You have witnessed a stronger contextual argument for Phil 2 along with some encouraging exhortation to be of like mind with the Master - a servant. Please no speculation or inference only real evidence is admissible.

In the Masters service.
Purity

Purity,

I would be happy to go into more detail on the subject. However, before I do, I would like to have you answer some of my questions, since I have been very willing to respond to yours.

Based on your views, please explain the following:

1. If Jesus is a created being, how can his one sacrifice be sufficient to redeem the entire world?
2. If Jesus is a created being, how can it be said that "God alone" is our salvation? Wouldn't Jesus, not God, be the real source of our salvation?
3. If Jesus is a created being, why is he worshipped? (Rev. 5:8-13; Heb. 1:6; 2 Pet. 3:18).
4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:3)
5. If Jesus was merely an outstanding man who was blessed and glorified because of his exemplary life, how did he have authority to forgive sins? (Mark 2:7-10)

I believe the doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of all the teaching of Scripture and our redemption. Although it seems you and nothead will not be satisfied unless there was a verse that says, "Jesus is God, the exact substance of God, and one of three persons of the Triune God." Yet the point here is that while you may not be satisfied with my answers, they are biblically sound in every way which is why it is a cornerstone of historical Christian doctrine and other views such as Arianism and Adoptionism have been discounted long ago as dangerous heresies. Let's take a little time to examine your position and see how it stands up to the actual teaching of the Bible before I continue with my "defense."

 

[nothead]

I think Wormwood, that your starting point has been so far kind of going down the line of trying to interpret and defend your interpretation of Phillippians 2 more than anything else.

But if you start from Jewish POV, you will find out this is not where they themselves were at, especially in relation to the physical walking and breathing Christ who strode among them.

I have stated before that the SHEMA was the recited commandment which defines these Jews from many others...especially from their own Canaanite counterparts and the polytheism inherent...and especially from the Egyptian Gods who preceded in their consciousness as they themselves walked the exodus of repentance until the Land of Promise was before them, and too the Great Command was given in Deut 6.

Most Trinitarians shirk from Shema, redefining with aplomb and debonair the ancient interpretation, saying the numerical Echad of the Hebrew is actually a 'compound one,' that the name YHWH Elohim was a 'compound or plural God,' and that the very FIRST Command of the Judeo-Christian faith is in fact a vague assertion of the uniqueness of this compound God.

Thus Shema is not ever taught by Christians and in fact hasn't been since Christians stopped going to synagogue. Why, why since it is redefined to be incomprehensible: The Plural Compound (Undefined number of) God is ALONE and UNIQUE in UNITY.

WHAT number of God was not said, three according to the Trin. THIS is so they can shoehorn in their own number of God, Three with the addendum that this Threebee God is ONE in unity. Thus the Trin precept is established. God is no longer ONE, but THREE-IN-ONE.

Shema DEFEATS your vaunted Trinity from the git-go. IT says YHWH Elohim is One and this absolutely meant. ECHAD is the numerical, counting number one, as a Hebrew child would first learn as number. ALL context of Deuteronomy and the Shema which is first mentioned there has ONLY singular verbs and pronouns attached to the One True God of the Jews.

Logically God must be ONE or PLURAL and not both, EITHER/OR. So now you have the 10,000 plus SINGULAR verbs and pronouns to contend with, and your measly SIX possible plural pronouns in four verses ain't gonna suffice. Especially since these (Gen 1:26 has two) are God speaking to other elohim, not HIMSELF.

And a key to understanding in conclusion that God meant the Shema as plain meaning, not anything mystical or gnostic or requiring a Hypostatic Union to understand or any other oddball paradigm for an incomprehensible construct build (Trinity); this is behooving for us to comprehend:

Shema was meant as Peshat Law. A CHILD is told to hear this law so that HE will know to love and to fear YHWH Elohim.

Deut 30

[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Deut 31

[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]Gather the people together, men and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear theLord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

So then, you who think the Shema has nothing to do with you.....em let me start from the beginning.

The Shema is this:

Deut 6

[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.
[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
[SIZE=.75em]7 [/SIZE]And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
[SIZE=.75em]8 [/SIZE]And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

NO OTHER COMMAND in the Bible is given this emphasis...

And Jesus himself said it was the primary command of the faith:

Mark 12

[SIZE=.75em]28 [/SIZE]And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
[SIZE=.75em]29 [/SIZE]And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
[SIZE=.75em]30 [/SIZE]And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
[SIZE=.75em]31 [/SIZE]And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
[SIZE=.75em]32 [/SIZE]And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
[SIZE=.75em]33 [/SIZE]And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
[SIZE=.75em]34 [/SIZE]And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

Luke 10

[SIZE=.75em]25 [/SIZE]And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
[SIZE=.75em]26 [/SIZE]He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
[SIZE=.75em]27 [/SIZE]And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
[SIZE=.75em]28 [/SIZE]And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Matthew 22

[SIZE=.75em]32 [/SIZE]I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[SIZE=.75em]33 [/SIZE]And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
[SIZE=.75em]34 [/SIZE]But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
[SIZE=.75em]35 [/SIZE]Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[SIZE=.75em]36 [/SIZE]Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[SIZE=.75em]37 [/SIZE]Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[SIZE=.75em]38 [/SIZE]This is the first and great commandment.
[SIZE=.75em]39 [/SIZE]And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[SIZE=.75em]40 [/SIZE]On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Notice a few things with Mathew...the singular "I" is used by Jesus to describe his God. And he says everything is informed by the first two commands of their faith.

And if by chance a man of faith ever re-attaches himself to the Great Command, all things become harmonious and true...
God is One Being and One Person. Love this God with all you have.

Changes all things. Changed me I will say it here and wherever I go.

Based on your views, please explain the following:

1. If Jesus is a created being, how can his one sacrifice be sufficient to redeem the entire world?

He was designed by the Designer who foreknew all things to be the symbolic antithesis to Adam the Failure. Jesus overcame. This makes Jesus the Overcomer.

2. If Jesus is a created being, how can it be said that "God alone" is our salvation? Wouldn't Jesus, not God, be the real source of our salvation?

1. Not if what he was doing was REFLECTING the Word, DOING the will and BEING the destined Glorified Messiah.
2. God is the Source of him, just as he said. He is the Source of Redemption, just as God designed.

3. If Jesus is a created being, why is he worshipped? (Rev. 5:8-13; Heb. 1:6; 2 Pet. 3:18).

Proskuneow before a man was always done ever since kings were allowed as the Israelites desired. God allowed this too, as long as

1. this king bowed before HIM
2. the people knew who was at the top of the ladder, seated at the ultimate throne.

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:3)

I believe primarily since THROUGH him are all things stablished, not BY him causally. If BY (causal) then an harmonious world back toward the ideal which was meant at the beginning (effect).

5. If Jesus was merely an outstanding man who was blessed and glorified because of his exemplary life, how did he have authority to forgive sins? (Mark 2:7-10)

The answer is the same as the question: How did his DISCIPLES have the authority to forgive sins?

Jn 20

[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
[SIZE=.75em]23 [/SIZE]Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I have a hard time believing you set yourself up for these kind of refutes, Wormwood. This one makes me laugh it is pretty "101" as my Chinese wife would say.

I believe the doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of all the teaching of Scripture and our redemption. Although it seems you and nothead will not be satisfied unless there was a verse that says, "Jesus is God, the exact substance of God, and one of three persons of the Triune God." Yet the point here is that while you may not be satisfied with my answers, they are biblically sound in every way which is why it is a cornerstone of historical Christian doctrine and other views such as Arianism and Adoptionism have been discounted long ago as dangerous heresies. Let's take a little time to examine your position and see how it stands up to the actual teaching of the Bible before I continue with my "defense."

Of course I would not have butted in with my own responses, except you included me here, sir. Thanks for letting me make you look bad.

If you were pretty before, you ain't any more. Don't feel bad, pretty boys are only good for mega-churches, not the faithful.

 

[Wormwood]

"Excuse me, sir. Elohim could mean aardvark, antelope, beagle, bunny, cat..."

nothead still at it with Wormwood

 

[nothead]

"Excuse me, sir. Elohim could mean aardvark, antelope, beagle, bunny, cat..."

nothead still at it with Wormwood

Lol, try looking it up. Michael Heiser, trin scholar extraordinaire, "What is an elohim?" Free PDF online.

5-6 categories of being, NONE of them animals. Cherubim, seraphim, angels, ghosts, spirits, yeah. Worms, slugs, and C.S. Lewis' God-analogies to slugs, naah.

Bible don't blaspheme, your vaunted heros did.

 

[Wormwood]

While I am posting pictures, this one is quite interesting.


This is the earliest known depiction of Christ on the cross. It's a work of graffiti mocking a Christian. It reads, "Alexamenos worships his God." Its a picture of Jesus naked on a cross with a donkey's head. Looks like even unbelievers understood the views of early Christians and the divinity of Christ. It seems little has changed in all these years. Christians are still mocked for worshipping our God.

 

[nothead]

While I am posting pictures, this one is quite interesting.


This is the earliest known depiction of Christ on the cross. It's a work of graffiti mocking a Christian. It reads, "Alexamenos worships his God." Its a picture of Jesus naked on a cross with a donkey's head. Looks like even unbelievers understood the views of early Christians and the divinity of Christ. It seems little has changed in all these years. Christians are still mocked for worshipping our God.

Little do we know that making the Lamb OF God, God the Lamb, we are too doing the same, blaspheming the Holy One of the Ages.

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:3)

Jn 1:1-3

These first verses don't depict Jesus as Logos yet, since the words, IN THE BEGINNING refer actually to the Creation Account whereby YHWH Elohim DABAR (speaks) some thirteen times and what he SPOKE (also dabar, noun) manifests. "Let there be light." And there was light, literally. Now John goes on to tie in the concept of 'light' to Jesus, but Jesus IS not technically the 'light' which comes from the sun, but the tabernacling of the Shekinah glory in the physical body of Jesus.

So then the LOGOS is meant to be the same thing John always meant, without the disassociative meaning pre-Trins have historically attached in history. What a man or God has said.

In the Beginning was the Word, the Word was with, at, to, toward or face-to-face with God. This does NOT mean God was with God! How can it? John the Jew doesn't speak this way. Why, why...em since he is a Jew? Ever since Abraham was spoken to by the One True God, this ONE GOD said no other elohim shalt be to his face (presence).

RATHER the LOGOS or what God spoke isn't for John SPOKEN until v. 14. But and yet it was alive and well, not as a living God with God, but as the pre-SPOKEN Word of God, still the SAME MEANING as John always uses all 34 some times in his Gospel!! Whoo Hoo! Nothead HAS it goin' on. That means he is pretty cool, not the nerd even his FRIENDS said he was. Is. NO, he isn't.

PRE-SPOKEN this Word "Jesus" was still thought and pre-existent as prophesy and event-yet-to-come. All prophets with the gift of Messianic Prophesy knew OF it. No, I didn't make this up. This is Jewish POV, no more, no less.

Thus the Word of God is "Jesus" at least when it doesn't speak something else from Source, God. Then this Word is to, toward, at, with or face-to-face with God in what manner? HAH. As reflection of His will, what else?

So then IS there some sense in which Jesus IS the Word of God? Yes, but not ontologically. The spoken Word "JESUS" was in fact the single word of God which is called the WORD of God, since this single metaphor will bring all things we know into harmony and back to ideal.

...thus we come to the next verses of yours. Lettuce be logical and clear, my friend. The reason why the Word cannot be HOLISTICALLY or SUBSTANTIVELY Jesus is because then it couldn't be "LIGHT" no more, now can it? Em? At least not the light which was brought forth at Creation. You know...the thing from the sun?

Which brings up a rule Nothead made sometime in his past someday known the world over. A word or metaphor has a RANGE of meaning, but not typically contradictory as you get to the outer reaches of this metaphor.

So then the metaphors of God, the WORD also itself has a RANGE of meaning but none of them ranges or grass-growing pastures contradict each other.

However when you and yours made this meaning HOLISTICALLY JESUS, you ignore totally the traditional RANGE or pasture of meaning.

In other words, you and yours are EATEN of some mighty oddball strains of grass, know what I mean?

And now we come to the REASON why nothead knows he is right and you is wrong. I eat grass which I know. Youall 'know' something quite incomprehensible.

And then consider the red letter references of JESUS of the Logos...John 5:

[SIZE=.75em]24 [/SIZE]Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word [ton logon], and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
[SIZE=.75em]25 [/SIZE]Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
[SIZE=.75em]26 [/SIZE]For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
[SIZE=.75em]27 [/SIZE]And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
[SIZE=.75em]28 [/SIZE]Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
[SIZE=.75em]29 [/SIZE]And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
[SIZE=.75em]30 [/SIZE]I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[SIZE=.75em]31 [/SIZE]If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
[SIZE=.75em]32 [/SIZE]There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
[SIZE=.75em]33 [/SIZE]Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
[SIZE=.75em]34 [/SIZE]But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
[SIZE=.75em]35 [/SIZE]He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
[SIZE=.75em]36 [/SIZE]But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
[SIZE=.75em]37 [/SIZE]And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
[SIZE=.75em]38 [/SIZE]And ye have not his word [ton logon autou] abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
[SIZE=.75em]40 [/SIZE]And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

...so then first he says MY WORD, and then he says the Father's Word, so which is it, both? Yeah, that's YOUR interpretation.

No, the then orthodox view is that it originated in the Father and was spoken as a prophet would, an annointed Messiah.

Jn 12

[SIZE=.75em]47 [/SIZE]And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
[SIZE=.75em]48 [/SIZE]He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word [logos] that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

So then Wormwood, here is a small question but a big implication since I know you will never answer it...

IF the Word of God is as Jesus said, a commandment or saying of the Living God...AND this Word is also Jesus in the holistic sense as John portrays in his own Prologue...em how do you correlate the two? Remember RANGES of meaning can extend to the outer reaches of the universe, but how does YOUR paradigm work?

How does that thing which God says also happen to BE GOD with this God who says it? Wormwood? Wormwood?

Calling on Wormwood, Champion of the Trinitarian Faith, eh...

NOW we are over your head, em? Well no surprise since your interpretation didn't make a lick of sense anyway, what?
Not even a cow's lick on yer cowlick, cowboy.

I believe the doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of all the teaching of Scripture and our redemption. Although it seems you and nothead will not be satisfied unless there was a verse that says, "Jesus is God, the exact substance of God, and one of three persons of the Triune God." Yet the point here is that while you may not be satisfied with my answers, they are biblically sound in every way which is why it is a cornerstone of historical Christian doctrine and other views such as Arianism and Adoptionism have been discounted long ago as dangerous heresies. Let's take a little time to examine your position and see how it stands up to the actual teaching of the Bible before I continue with my "defense."

Purity is taken a break. And I guess she ain't no girl, so I hope I didn't offend her. I mean him. So until he comes back, his burden ain't heavy, he's my brother. Please consider mine own terps.
Next one coming.

Oh I forgot the final clause. Jason BeDuhn says it should rather read: ...and God[ly] was the Word. This has to do with the lack of definite article, rendering GOD in qualitative sense not literal.

All John is actually doing is to set us up in order to understand: God MEANT this Messiah to come even from the Foundation of the World. And he who was prophesied from the Ages, was meant to be from before the Foundation of the World, and now THIS has come to pass.

WHOO HOO!!

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:3)

Col 1:16

[SIZE=.75em]16 [/SIZE]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[SIZE=.75em]17 [/SIZE]And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

I must admit an early bias against this verse, since it seemed right away to contradict the Creation Account, which mentions Jesus not. Like if he was there creating with his Father, together, then not only was the first account incomplete, SO IS THIS ONE, since it does not mention the FATHER as Co-Creator.

Secondly neither account mentions the third equal partner so then I am triple stumped as to why no one can just tell the whole story. And well, I hate to bring up something which you all seem to have gotten past already, so just call me not-abstract.

Like em, Paul COULD NOT just say all three were there creating, but now we know the SON was Creator too, along with the other two? We are supposed TO KNOW then the Holy Spirit wasn't just HOVERIN' over them waters, HE was creatin' some lizards or gerbils or slugs at least?

Well then I naturally tried to find the alternative meanings this passage could portray. And I think the traditional view is because of the word DIA in the Greek which has a dominant meaning and then some alternate possibilities. Lettuce see then:

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act

Vine's Expository

Cause (Noun and Verb):
lit., "on account of this, for this cause," signifying the ground or reason,

...so then the preposition with the noun being HIM would say...

For on ACCOUNT OF HIM were all things created,

Or, FOR HIS CAUSE were all things created, ahhh don't make as much sense...

Yeah, that's the ticket...For on account of him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities, or powers, all things are created on account of him (through his acts) and EIS AUTON.

The second preposition is EIS or INTO. FOR is considered by Strongs to be used 140 times. INTO 573 times. INTO HIM, continual....him what could it mean?

Eis auton for him, into him, toward him continually all things? FOR HIM implies God which is the common terp, but INTO him continually are all things made?

Wow gnostic. For the cause of him are all things channeled, and INTO HIM continually are all things made. Quite the mystery, eh? Yet we are sailing away from the common terp here, and into the rocky cliffs of heresy...oh no, Wormwood look where we at. And we ain't even the Nina, Pinta or Santa Maria!

Anyway do you see that BOTH prepositions are used traditionally not in dominant meaning rather secondary meaning? DIA means Through or on account of, more often and EIS means "into continually" more often so then how can all things be INTO CHRIST continually, unless he is God?

Going back to Vine's Expository, "unto the end" and "unto the carried through" are adverbial uses of EIS. Now a picture emerges...

....all things are carried through 'in' him. HE is the cause but not the cause of Creation at all. All things are made to be ideal and of the New Creation IN HIM.

And I used the LEAST mystical or gnostic meaning I could, sir. Since my heepy days are over and my GURU persona never fooled anyone.

So you do not believe me? Consider this my brother:

And the Lamb will sleep next to the Lion. (And not get et). This is what Paul was speaking of...and he waxed Holy Spirific is all.








.

4. If Jesus is a created being, why is he depicted as the Creator? (1 Cor. 8:6)

[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Well, NOW we have an interesting situation, for the previous verse I said had all things IN (eis) Christ, and now all things are EIS the Father. How would an adverbial EIS work here, UNTO the end him continually, or "unto the carried through" Him?

It might help to see the clause before OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, means in Greek, "ex hou," or "out of Him are all things," easily seen as the Word ex hou Him comes all things...

...to the carried through of all things in God the Father? Yes, all things are carried through from out of HIM the PLANNER. The WORD being the plan. And in contrast the ONE LORD is Jesus through whom all things (in the New Creation) are through...and we (too) through him.

And I won't point out the obvious here, which states emphatically the One and Only God the Father.

Heb 1:3

[SIZE=.75em]2 [/SIZE]Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

I put in v. 2 for context because "HIS" seems to change in referent...in v. 2 it is obviously God, HE hath appointed is God and HE (God) made the worlds...

...in v. 3 the WHO is Jesus and the "HIS" is still God although some would disagree...until "when HE had by himself purged our sin, and (then) sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, this HE is Jesus.

That's what I thought anyway. So then where is Jesus God here?

 

[Wormwood]

notty,

Thank you for your very verbose reply. I wish I had asked these questions earlier. I think you do a better job showing the validity of the Trinity by the ridiculous hermeneutics you display in your effort to validate your own position. Let's take a look at this fine mess you have made here.

In the Beginning was the Word, the Word was with, at, to, toward or face-to-face with God. This does NOT mean God was with God! How can it? John the Jew doesn't speak this way. Why, why...em since he is a Jew? Ever since Abraham was spoken to by the One True God, this ONE GOD said no other elohim shalt be to his face (presence). Jason BeDuhn says it should rather read: ...and God[ly] was the Word. This has to do with the lack of definite article, rendering GOD in qualitative sense not literal

Uh, is who is Jason? Has he ever taken a Greek class before? The word here is θεός. It is a singular, masculine noun. It is not an adjective. The lack of a definite article does not turn a noun into an adjective in the Greek language. If this is the case, then verse 12 should read, "he gave the right to become children of godly." Also, verse 18 should read that no one has ever seen "godly." It should strike you that of the tens of thousands of Greek scholars translating thousands of Bible translations and none of them read, "godly was the Word" that perhaps this is not how it should be translated.

You see, when your theological view forces you to start trying to find your way around verses, then you probably ought to change your view and leave the verses alone.

RATHER the LOGOS or what God spoke isn't for John SPOKEN until v. 14. But and yet it was alive and well, not as a living God with God, but as the pre-SPOKEN Word of God, still the SAME MEANING as John always uses all 34 some times in his Gospel!! Whoo Hoo! Nothead HAS it goin' on. That means he is pretty cool, not the nerd even his FRIENDS said he was. Is. NO, he isn't.

This would be funny if it wasnt so sad. So the Word was with God....but not really because it was a "prespoken" Word, so it kinda wasnt really a Word..more of an non-Word kinda Word. So I mean, it really was there...truly...I mean not really as in really really spoken...but you know like the words you speak before you speak them. No, not the unspoken...well sorta. Kinda like the prespoken, unspoken word that exists before it really exists. So he was there in verse one, but not REALLY truly there until verse 14. That's some fine hermeneutics there.

IF the Word of God is as Jesus said, a commandment or saying of the Living God...AND this Word is also Jesus in the holistic sense as John portrays in his own Prologue...em how do you correlate the two? Remember RANGES of meaning can extend to the outer reaches of the universe, but how does YOUR paradigm work?

Here's your answer you knew I wouldn't give, just like you know I am wrong about the Trinity: First, you need to research the meaning of "logos." It means word, but more than just a word. It has to do with logic, reasoning and understanding. Jesus is the meaning, purpose and rationale for all things in the universe and out of this purpose and power all things were made. This purpose, rationale, and meaning was with God and WAS God from the very beginning. This purpose which comes out of the very nature of who God is was made flesh. Thus, Jesus comes as the "light" into a dark world because he is the very incarnation of God's purpose, truth and grace in the world. Those who believe in him are made children of God.

Like em, Paul COULD NOT just say all three were there creating, but now we know the SON was Creator too, along with the other two? We are supposed TO KNOW then the Holy Spirit wasn't just HOVERIN' over them waters, HE was creatin' some lizards or gerbils or slugs at least?

What are you talking about?

Well then I naturally tried to find the alternative meanings this passage could portray. And I think the traditional view is because of the word DIA in the Greek which has a dominant meaning and then some alternate possibilities. Lettuce see then:

Again, when your first inclination is to find an "alternative meaning" to a very clear scripture in order to make it say what you want it to say...Houston, we have a problem.

You see, my noddy friend, very early in Greek they teach you some things.....things you clearly do not know because you do not know Greek. You learn very early in year one of Greek that prepositions have different meanings. Like you learned from Vines... a preposition like "dia" can mean, through, by or on account of, etc. However, you don't just pick and choose when these different meanings apply. They apply based on how they are USED IN THE SENTENCE! If it is used with a genitive, such as used here...it means by or through. If it were used with an accusative, it would mean "on account of, for this cause."

You really need to put Vines down and quit trying to twist scripture using a language you clearly do not understand.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Jesus Christ is The Son of God .... I think we all agree on that

But it was The Holy Spirit that came upon Virgin Mary

The Holy Spirit has to be God

It cannot be any other way.

We may not understand exactly how that works , but that is beside the point

 

[Floyd]

Arnie Manitoba: that's it!
Floyd.

 

[nothead]

Jesus Christ is The Son of God .... I think we all agree on that

But it was The Holy Spirit that came upon Virgin Mary

The Holy Spirit has to be God

It cannot be any other way.

We may not understand exactly how that works , but that is beside the point

Pentecostals should know how annointing works, God's spirit will empower a man to do great things. The overriding messianic ikon was David before Jesus arrived, and all Jews figured this new arrival would be in the same image, warrior, saint, bard and dancer, king and pleaser of harems.

Whatever David was in the negative sense, he defeated the giant from the start and was gilded with the blessedness of God from then on.

Jesus accomplished even more, the most more. He never sinned which means he fully accomplished the Great Law, Shema. He is the hero of this age, greater than his father was by extreme.

But to say he was God did not get established until 7 generations after he was here, posthumously. If you know your history, you also know this is true.

notty,

Thank you for your very verbose reply. I wish I had asked these questions earlier. I think you do a better job showing the validity of the Trinity by the ridiculous hermeneutics you display in your effort to validate your own position. Let's take a look at this fine mess you have made here.




Fine mess for you, alternative theories have probabilities inherent.

Hermeneutics demand consistency in the Bible and what you totally miss is the Bridge of Understanding from a monotheistic God in the OT to the Tripartite God of the Trinitarian. The very verses which you are saying Paul and John and others wrote to EXPLAIN Trinity do not EXPLAIN anything, only STATE the premise according to your understanding.

The BRIDGE of Understanding however is necessary for all Jews who know the Foundations of Faith which they stand upon. To take down any BLOCK of Foundation which we stood on before requires the explanation and the bridge of reason in order to make this transition. For instance if God tells Abraham He is EL SHADDAI and then Moses He is rather YHWH Elohim, the BRIDGE of TRANSITION is readily established in Exodus 3. Each name has it's own meaning; the SHADDAI meaning something and the "I will be what I will be" meaning something else. But notice God refers to the former name to Moses and says His NEW NAME is YHWH Elohim a GREATER REVELATION. This was never done with Jesus. God never said, "My former name was "YHWH Elohim" but I am revealing to YOU Christians MY NAME is "Jesus" now, or "Before you knew me as YHWH Elohim, but NOW my name is Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

All Jews knew the name before to be "YHWH Elohim" why...why since it is mentioned only a gadzillion times in Tanakh. He says this name "is forever, a memorial for all generations," which means for the duration normally...so then of course an announcement BRIDGING the GAP is then needed, IF this name is changed or altered, just as God did in Exodus 3. Trins are quite satisfied with the verses stating "Jesus, name above all names,"
not understanding that the NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES cannot be BOTH "Jesus" and the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

IF the name above all names is Jesus and Jesus is God, THEN the trin formulation cannot be the NAME of GOD, sir. THIS is why Mt 28:19 does not fit, and causes a dissociative effect for all. One primal example of TRIN HERMENEUTIC which cannot work. Yet this is typical of Trinitarian methodology. Again, the old monotheism was default for the Jewish believer and this NEW PARADIGM of a Threebee God must have a BRIDGE or it is possibly probably and in the end truly false.

This is just fundamental reason, not especially intelligent, just knowing what is required, what is necessary and what has to be. Like when you get hungry, the reason or premise would then be "eat or die" sir. This is the prominent one, anyway, and true for me and for you.

Uh, is who is Jason? Has he ever taken a Greek class before? The word here is θεός. It is a singular, masculine noun. It is not an adjective. The lack of a definite article does not turn a noun into an adjective in the Greek language. If this is the case, then verse 12 should read, "he gave the right to become children of godly." Also, verse 18 should read that no one has ever seen "godly." It should strike you that of the tens of thousands of Greek scholars translating thousands of Bible translations and none of them read, "godly was the Word" that perhaps this is not how it should be translated.

Adjectival noun when it isn't specified with the definite article. THE GOD is almost always GOD ALMIGHTY. But THEOS without the article can range in meaning from "God" (qualitative) and "a God" as the JW's portray. I do not agree with Jehovah's Witnesses, but grammatically it is possible their terp is true.

Here, let me give you the language lesson from English POV.

Nouns are the names of things, qualities, etc: pencil, health, mountain, earnestness.
Adjectives describe nouns (things, qualities, etc): red pencil, good health, snowy mountain, earnest effort.

So then, nouns can denote QUALITIES and adjectives can denote QUALITIES. In other words, in your language sir, nouns can be meant adjectivally.

See, senor. You can fool some of you own sometime but not you enemy for all time. He might in fact bite you back never can tell.

Jason BeDuhn is not a greenhorn. Google him, I ain't gonna give you ALL the pearls on a plate. He pointed out the normal Greek ALSO has the liturgy reverse in the last clause, "and the Word was God," should be "and God was the Word." No one can refute, since it is true.
.

You see, when your theological view forces you to start trying to find your way around verses, then you probably ought to change your view and leave the verses alone.

If I left the verse alone, it might get lonely, homeboy. I mean brother. Can't let THAT happen.

This would be funny if it wasnt so sad. So the Word was with God....but not really because it was a "prespoken" Word, so it kinda wasnt really a Word..more of an non-Word kinda Word. So I mean, it really was there...truly...I mean not really as in really really spoken...but you know like the words you speak before you speak them. No, not the unspoken...well sorta. Kinda like the prespoken, unspoken word that exists before it really exists. So he was there in verse one, but not REALLY truly there until verse 14. That's some fine hermeneutics there.

No, John was saying only that which had been PROPHESIED of has now in their lifetimes come to pass. What if he was announcing TODAY his second coming? Would not WE be excited, fearful, and awed? AMEN?

Here's your answer you knew I wouldn't give, just like you know I am wrong about the Trinity: First, you need to research the meaning of "logos." It means word, but more than just a word. It has to do with logic, reasoning and understanding. Jesus is the meaning, purpose and rationale for all things in the universe and out of this purpose and power all things were made. This purpose, rationale, and meaning was with God and WAS God from the very beginning. This purpose which comes out of the very nature of who God is was made flesh. Thus, Jesus comes as the "light" into a dark world because he is the very incarnation of God's purpose, truth and grace in the world. Those who believe in him are made children of God.

But in John, it means what a man or God spoke, and there is no holistic revelatory meaning at all. Clue: "In the beginning" refers to the Word of Creation. You got this from men like Philo the Jew or later Justin Martyr. These types of guys had good intentions but their philosophical waxing waxes us over with confusion.

The abstract thing John was saying was that this Word being a REFLECTION of God's will is God himself expressed, even BEFORE it was spoken. Else how anyone get prophesy OF it, sir? It existed before it was spoken, of course. Em. Jesus too was expressed as Word before he existed. This is HOW he could ask for his glory in Jn 17 as IF the promise he OWNED and HAD since God planned it was real as soon as God planned it. OF COURSE he hadn't received it yet, why else is he ASKING for it?

When we wax into confusion we make an unmitigated mush out of you and me. Famous quote by nothead. You heard it here first, folks.

Oh, how do I know the Word is meant here as what God or man speaks? Yeah, I looked up EVERY INSTANCE of this metaphor in John. Good excercise and homework for you, sir.

What are you talking about?

You don't seem to get it. Until Jesus arrived, the Creator was the Only and One True God. EVERY TIME. And the Spirit was only mentioned as HOVERING over the waters, not CREATING as if it was another Person of God.

So then Jesus came and went and you think Paul is saying that HE was co-creator with God and God. But the OTHER TWO were never mentioned before as creating. And you see no problem with this. Nothead is stumped, however he don't like it one bit. Since too, Paul doesn't mention the Holy Spirit here creating either.

Why can't they get their story straight? ALL THREE were there creating and no creation verse SAYS so. You DON'T see a problem? Am I really that daft? Don't answer.

Again, when your first inclination is to find an "alternative meaning" to a very clear scripture in order to make it say what you want it to say...Houston, we have a problem.

I admit my bias. What you don't understand is how biased trinitarianism is. And when I found out the divinity of Jesus which is presumed by 98% of all Christianity is ALSO a late-bloomer assumption, I was flabbergasted. For instance the first three known Creeds do NOT have this premise within.

You see, my noddy friend, very early in Greek they teach you some things.....things you clearly do not know because you do not know Greek. You learn very early in year one of Greek that prepositions have different meanings. Like you learned from Vines... a preposition like "dia" can mean, through, by or on account of, etc. However, you don't just pick and choose when these different meanings apply. They apply based on how they are USED IN THE SENTENCE! If it is used with a genitive, such as used here...it means by or through. If it were used with an accusative, it would mean "on account of, for this cause."

The first BY in Col 1:16 is 'en auto' so you must be speaking of the second "by" which is followed by a genitive. But I did say even if "by means of" was meant in the last clause, it is the new creation, not the old one. Jesus is CAUSAL to the newly established creation which he presides over (for now, until the end denouement, 1 Cor 15).

And you glossed the last word FOR HIM which is more likely INTO HIM.

You really need to put Vines down and quit trying to twist scripture using a language you clearly do not understand.

If you would like to address the REASON why this verse probably doesn't mean what you think which overrides grammatical options, all right. I admit the impetus for trying to find other options is the same hermeneutical method as considering ALL the Bible to be cohesive: When it says for instance GOD raised Jesus up a bajillion times and then one time in John Jesus says HE raises himself up, then we can make this cohesive by saying GOD FIRST raised him up, and then he raised himself up, OR that

Jesus was speaking the words of YHWH in the first person just as a prophet is wont to do. Not NECESSARILY that Jesus who is God ALSO raised his own dead self up.

Which doesn't exactly make sense. If you were dead, how you gonna raise ANYTHING much less you own self up?

 

[Floyd]

Pentecostals should know how annointing works, God's spirit will empower a man to do great things. The overriding messianic ikon was David before Jesus arrived, and all Jews figured this new arrival would be in the same image, warrior, saint, bard and dancer, king and pleaser of harems.(nohead)

Charismatic teaching:

The Events of Pentecost; What is the Truth? (Discussion Document).

Floyd.