One and Triune God.

[Rich R]

I can understand Jesus the son of Yahweh and Mary having the attributes of three persons.

Here's a good article on Jewish agency: Shaliah - Wikipedia. That article has many other references at the end if you want to go deeper.

The idea of agency is included in the word Hebrew word "Shaliah" (not to be confused with the Muslim Shariah law). Although the word "Shaliah" (a noun) is not actually found in the scriptures, the verb form, "shalach" (Strong's H7971), is used almost 900 times to describe someone who is sent, as in God sent Jesus. It's also often used of men sending other men.

Let me know what you think. God bless.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's equally clear you did no research whatsoever on agency in the Ancient Near East, despite the fact that I gave you the necessary Google search words

You're absolutely right, I don't understand the trinity. Nobody understands the trinity. Nobody can understand a son being his own father. Isn't that why they have to say, "take if by faith"?

"Bob sent his son to the store..." So that makes Bob and his son one person?

I see three distinct persons in the scriptures. Wouldn't three distinct persons mean there are three persons? What makes them somehow one person? That's what I don't find in the scriptures. Are Larry, Curly, and Moe the same person. They must be since they all appear in one show. What?????

So, your entire posaition here is NOT that the ONE Go can't be manifested in Three Persons. It is simply ythat you don't believe in God.
It's prettu clear that you din't believe in the God of th Bible, at least.

The Scriptures tell us -
Isaiah 55:8-9
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

This is why WE who believe understand that –
Matthew 19:26 es
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Luke 1:37
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

The Word of God also tells iuus that He is Eternal - that He ALWAYS was amd was not created (Gen. 1:1m John 1:1, 2 Pet. 3:8)
I'm sure you have a tough time with thatr one as well . . .

 

[Rich R]

So, your entire posaition here is NOT that the ONE Go can't be manifested in Three Persons. It is simply ythat you don't believe in God.
It's prettu clear that you din't believe in the God of th Bible, at least.

The Scriptures tell us -
Isaiah 55:8-9
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

This is why WE who believe understand that –
Matthew 19:26 es
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Luke 1:37
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

The Word of God also tells iuus that He is Eternal - that He ALWAYS was amd was not created (Gen. 1:1m John 1:1, 2 Pet. 3:8)
I'm sure you have a tough time with thatr one as well . . .

I'm probably not making myself clear, but suffice it to say I don't believe what you think I believe. We're probably much more alike in doctrine than different. At least as far as I can tell with the limited interaction we've had so far.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm probably not making myself clear, but suffice it to say I don't believe what you think I believe. We're probably much more alike in doctrine than different. At least as far as I can tell with the limited interaction we've had so far.

We don't have similar doctrinal views. In fact, we don't even believe in the same God.
Virtually every heresy in history begins with a misconception of the nature of God.

We may have similar dotrinal beliefs/practices in theory - but with 2 different Gods, they can't be the same doctrines.

 

[Cooper]

I'm probably not making myself clear, but suffice it to say I don't believe what you think I believe. We're probably much more alike in doctrine than different. At least as far as I can tell with the limited interaction we've had so far.

Hello Rich, it is a new day for me at 6am, after a good night's sleep. Before I begin to study shalach, I need to say, my Lord Mayor friend would need to have existed as Mayor from the beginning for my illustration to work, the same as Jesus was the WORD in the beginning. Now to Strong's concordance.
.

 

[Cooper]

I'm probably not making myself clear, but suffice it to say I don't believe what you think I believe. We're probably much more alike in doctrine than different. At least as far as I can tell with the limited interaction we've had so far.

Below is from Vines commentary. I studied this years ago and as I believe Jesus "is God with us" i.e. that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, I cannot accept Jesus as an emissary.

This is why:
For by him (Jesus) 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: (Colossians 1:16 KJV)

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17 KJV)

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13 KJV)

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8 KJV)

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36 KJV)

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:16 KJV)

VINES COMMENTARY
Send
A. Verb.
shalach (H7971), "to send, stretch forth, get rid of." This verb occurs in the Northwest Semitic languages (Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic). It occurs in all periods of Hebrew and in the Bible about 850 times. Biblical Aramaic uses this word 14 times.

Basically this verb means "to send," in the sense of (1) to initiate and to see that such movement occurs or (2) to successfully conclude such an action. In Gen_32:18 the second emphasis is in view—these animals are "a present sent unto my lord Esau." In Gen_38:20 the first idea is in view: When "Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend..., he found her not"; it never reached its goal. In 1Sa_15:20 Saul told Samuel about the "way which the lord sent" him; here, too, the emphasis is on the initiation of the action.

The most frequent use of shalach suggests the sending of someone or something as a messenger to a particular place: "...He shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence" (Gen_24:7); God's angel (messenger) will be sent to Nahor to prepare things for the successful accomplishment of the servant's task. One may also "send a word" by the hand of a messenger (fool); one may send a message (Pro_26:6), send a letter (2Sa_11:14), and send instructions (Gen_20:2).

Shalach can refer to shooting arrows by sending them to hit a particular target: "And he sent out arrows, and scattered them..." (2Sa_22:15). In Exo_9:14 God "sends" His plague into the midst of the Egyptians; He "sends" them forth and turns them loose among them. Other special meanings of this verb include letting something go freely or without control: "Thou givest thy mouth to evil..." (Psa_50:19).

Quite often this verb means "to stretch out." God was concerned lest after the Fall Adam "put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life" (Gen_3:22). One may stretch forth a staff (1Sa_14:27) or a sickle (Joe_3:13).

For the most part the intensive stems merely intensify the meanings already set forth, but the meaning "to send away" is especially frequent: "...Abner was no longer with David in Hebron, for David had sent him away..." (2Sa_3:22, NIV). That is, David "let him go" (2Sa_3:24, NIV). God sent man out of the garden of Eden; He made man leave (Gen_3:23—the first occurrence of the verb). Noah sent forth a raven (Gen_8:7). Shalach can also mean to give someone a send off, or "to send" someone on his way in a friendly manner: "...And Abraham went with them to bring them on the way [send them off]" (Gen_18:16). In Deu_22:19 the word is used of divorcing a wife, or sending her away.

This verb can signify "to get rid of" something: "They bow themselves, they bring forth their young ones, they cast out their [labor pains]" (Job_39:3). It can also be used of setting a bondservant free: "And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty" (Deu_15:13). In a less technical sense shalach can mean to release someone held by force. The angel with whom Jacob wrestled said: "Let me go, for the day breaketh" (Gen_32:26). Yet another nuance is "to hand someone over," as in Psa_81:12 : "So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust...." Shalach can also mean to set something afire, as in "set the city on fire" (Jdg_1:8).

In the passive sense the verb has some additional special meanings; in Pro_29:15 it means "to be left to oneself": "...But a child left to himself [who gets his own way] bringeth his mother to shame."
.

 

[Rich R]

We don't have similar doctrinal views. In fact, we don't even believe in the same God.
Virtually every heresy in history begins with a misconception of the nature of God.

We may have similar dotrinal beliefs/practices in theory - but with 2 different Gods, they can't be the same doctrines.

Unfortunately, I guess we don't believe in the same God.

I believe in the God of 1 Corinthians 8:6, which says that, to Paul, there is but one God, the Father. That's the God I go with. I don't see why anybody would want to go beyond that simple declaration and add two other gods, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[bbyrd009]

Unfortunately, I guess we don't believe in the same God.

I believe in the God of 1 Corinthians 8:6, which says that, to Paul, there is but one God, the Father. That's the God I go with. I don't see why anybody would want to go beyond that simple declaration and add two other gods, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

I said “you are Elohim”

 

[Rich R]

Hello Rich, it is a new day for me at 6am, after a good night's sleep. Before I begin to study shalach, I need to say, my Lord Mayor friend would need to have existed as Mayor from the beginning for my illustration to work, the same as Jesus was the WORD in the beginning. Now to Strong's concordance.
.

Technically, you are right about your friend, but analogies don't always agree 100%. I understood what you were saying in any case.

Your friend sounds like a really good man. To help the poor while being in such a high position as Lord Mayor is quite commendable. Reminds me of Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles.

God Bless.

 

[Rich R]

Below is from Vines commentary. I studied this years ago and as I believe Jesus "is God with us" i.e. that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, I cannot accept Jesus as an emissary.

This is why:
For by him (Jesus) 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: (Colossians 1:16 KJV)

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17 KJV)

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13 KJV)

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8 KJV)

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36 KJV)

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:16 KJV)

VINES COMMENTARY
Send
A. Verb.
shalach (H7971), "to send, stretch forth, get rid of." This verb occurs in the Northwest Semitic languages (Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic). It occurs in all periods of Hebrew and in the Bible about 850 times. Biblical Aramaic uses this word 14 times.

Basically this verb means "to send," in the sense of (1) to initiate and to see that such movement occurs or (2) to successfully conclude such an action. In Gen_32:18 the second emphasis is in view—these animals are "a present sent unto my lord Esau." In Gen_38:20 the first idea is in view: When "Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend..., he found her not"; it never reached its goal. In 1Sa_15:20 Saul told Samuel about the "way which the lord sent" him; here, too, the emphasis is on the initiation of the action.

The most frequent use of shalach suggests the sending of someone or something as a messenger to a particular place: "...He shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence" (Gen_24:7); God's angel (messenger) will be sent to Nahor to prepare things for the successful accomplishment of the servant's task. One may also "send a word" by the hand of a messenger (fool); one may send a message (Pro_26:6), send a letter (2Sa_11:14), and send instructions (Gen_20:2).

Shalach can refer to shooting arrows by sending them to hit a particular target: "And he sent out arrows, and scattered them..." (2Sa_22:15). In Exo_9:14 God "sends" His plague into the midst of the Egyptians; He "sends" them forth and turns them loose among them. Other special meanings of this verb include letting something go freely or without control: "Thou givest thy mouth to evil..." (Psa_50:19).

Quite often this verb means "to stretch out." God was concerned lest after the Fall Adam "put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life" (Gen_3:22). One may stretch forth a staff (1Sa_14:27) or a sickle (Joe_3:13).

For the most part the intensive stems merely intensify the meanings already set forth, but the meaning "to send away" is especially frequent: "...Abner was no longer with David in Hebron, for David had sent him away..." (2Sa_3:22, NIV). That is, David "let him go" (2Sa_3:24, NIV). God sent man out of the garden of Eden; He made man leave (Gen_3:23—the first occurrence of the verb). Noah sent forth a raven (Gen_8:7). Shalach can also mean to give someone a send off, or "to send" someone on his way in a friendly manner: "...And Abraham went with them to bring them on the way [send them off]" (Gen_18:16). In Deu_22:19 the word is used of divorcing a wife, or sending her away.

This verb can signify "to get rid of" something: "They bow themselves, they bring forth their young ones, they cast out their [labor pains]" (Job_39:3). It can also be used of setting a bondservant free: "And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty" (Deu_15:13). In a less technical sense shalach can mean to release someone held by force. The angel with whom Jacob wrestled said: "Let me go, for the day breaketh" (Gen_32:26). Yet another nuance is "to hand someone over," as in Psa_81:12 : "So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust...." Shalach can also mean to set something afire, as in "set the city on fire" (Jdg_1:8).

In the passive sense the verb has some additional special meanings; in Pro_29:15 it means "to be left to oneself": "...But a child left to himself [who gets his own way] bringeth his mother to shame."
.

Good article from Vines. I never saw that one. Thanks.

As far as Jesus being sent, there are at least 3 places in the Gospel of John alone that explicitly say Jesus was sent by God, 6:28, 8:42, and 17:3. There are many other places where it is very clear that God sent Jesus. I'm afraid being sent by someone makes the person sent an emissary. It reminds me of 2 Corinthians 5:20 where we are called Ambassadors of Christ. What a privilege that is!

 

[Rich R]

I said “you are Elohim”

Yes, there is that.

I think that not calling God by His name, YHWH, has caused much of the confusion as to who God and Jesus are. It's too often thought there is only one god, but that's not true. The Bible talks about many gods, including people. To the Ancient Near Easterner a god was someone with power and authority, hence many political leaders were called gods. Jesus certainly had power and authority which is what Thomas was saying. Thomas, a good Jew, was well aware of the Shema, (Deut 6:4, Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD) so he wasn't saying Jesus is YHWH. Thomas was just acknowledging Jesus' power and authority, both of which were give to him from YHWH. YHWH did not need anybody to give Him anything. He always had power and authority. That was not the case with Jesus. He had to be given his power and authority. Quite a distinction there.

The changing of the word YHWH to LORD gives the wrong impression. As 1 Corinthians 8:5says, there are many lords, not just one as too many translations intimate. Basically that name change amounts to around 6,800 deliberate forgeries in the translations that use the word LORD instead of what God actually said, i.e. YHWH. Yikes! I suspect that may mislead a lot of sincere Christians into beliefs that simply aren't in the scriptures.

So Deuteronomy 6:4 is actually saying there is only one YHWH. As 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, there is only one Lord and that is Jesus. One YHWY, our Father, and one Lord, our brother, the Lord Jesus Christ. It's a beautiful relationship that the trinity completely obfuscates. But isn't that what tradition does?

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

So while many say there is only one god, it might be better to say there is only one YHWH.

 

[farouk]

What is impossible with God? We are also triune beings...even the science of medicine has determined that in order to treat a person they must address the "whole" being....meaning to achieve ultimate health the treatment must include 1. The body..2. The mind...and 3. The spirit.
If you only treat the physical condition and the mental state is ill then the physical condition which you treated is just like putting a bandaid on the problem. Many health issues arise out of a person's mental condition....
Then the spiritual condition also must be resolved....when a person is in conflict with their beliefs they become affected mentally and emotionally which in turn affects the body.

@Heart2Soul The wondrous truth of God in Three Persons is so deeply Biblical that when ppl continue to deny it against all Biblical evidence, it's hard to know what else can be profitably said...

 

[Cooper]

Good article from Vines. I never saw that one. Thanks.

As far as Jesus being sent, there are at least 3 places in the Gospel of John alone that explicitly say Jesus was sent by God, 6:28, 8:42, and 17:3. There are many other places where it is very clear that God sent Jesus. I'm afraid being sent by someone makes the person sent an emissary. It reminds me of 2 Corinthians 5:20 where we are called Ambassadors of Christ. What a privilege that is!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. JESUS is the WORD. He sent himself.
.

 

[Rich R]

U

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. JESUS is the WORD. He sent himself.
.

Instead of substituting "Jesus" for "Word" in John 1:1, might it not be better to find out exactly what the word "Word" really means? It is the Greek word "logos" and it doesn't mean Jesus. I think you'll find it means what is in someone's mind, like a plan. That's what God had in the beginning.

Just reading John 1:1 in most translations ought to raise the question of how the Word can be with God and how it can be God at the same time. In any other realm we would find it odd to say, "the thing was with Bob, and the thing was Bob." Clearly there is something there that is not meant to be taken literally.

Also, as John stated at the end of his Gospel, he wrote it to show that Jesus is the anointed one, the son of God. He had no intentions of showing that Jesus is God.

Simply substituting "Jesus" for "Word" does a grave disservice to both God and Jesus. It minimizes the brilliance of the logos in a big way. Since death came by man it was necessary that redemption from death should also be accomplished by a man. God had to come up with a plan to convince fallible creatures like us to do His will. How He did that is beyond my comprehension, but He's God and I'm not. In any case, for God to just come down and do the work completely minimizes the logos of John 1:1.

The typical reading of John 1:1 also minimizes the work Jesus did for us. He was a man with like passions, tempted just like the rest of us. Despite that, he obeyed God to the very end.

As I've said before, God obeying Himself and believing He'd raise Himself from the dead is quite frankly boring. If that's all it was, the scriptures would have been about 1 page. But for God to work with idiotic humans in such a way that He convinced them to preserve His plan so Jesus would be able to learn it (yes, Jesus came into this world like every other baby, knowing nothing. He had to grow in wisdom as he faithfully studied the Jewish scriptures) and follow it is far and away the best story ever told.

Too bad so few believe John when he said,

John 20:31,

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

Too many want to change both John 1:1 and John 20:31 to something that agrees with tradition. The attitude seems to be, who cares what the scriptures actually say? We'll just change a word here and there so as to agree with tradition. I mean it's a 2,000 year old tradition. How could it possibly be wrong? News Flash: the scriptures are much older than the trinity tradition. John 20:31 does not say John wrote so we might believe Jesus is God. To read John with any other idea than Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, is to succumb to a lie. There's no way around that.

 

[EloyCraft]

@Rich R

The beginning


1 In the beginning (Jesus said"I am the beginning and the end. in Him all things are made.)God( the sovereign will of the Father) created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit)moved upon the face of the waters.

The end. This is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son.
Rev 22

22 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

 

[tigger 2]

An honest study of John's Greek grammar usage proves that John 1:1c is honestly translated as "and the word was a god." This is not referring to false gods as some trinitarians insist, but applies to angels, kings, even judges in scripture.

Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

 

[Pierac]

"πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες (baptize) αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα (in the name) τοῦ πατρὸς (of the father) καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ (of the son) καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος (of the holy spirit)..." (Matt. 28:19)

As we read, the apostles were instructed to invoke in the name (singular) of the following three (plural): the father, the son, and the holy spirit, each separate being serving a particular role, yet they all are the one God, and thus are called "God."

To better help you understand, consider there exists three separate states of water: solid, liquid, and gas, each serving a particular role, yet they all are water, and thus are called ''water."

Name - This word of course brings to mind an actual name, such as John Doe. But what does it mean to a Jew.

Name - 1. designates more than the external person; it tends to express his basic character, his personality. We might say it is an emanation of the person himself. 2. authority of, expressing attributes, in acknowledgment or confession of (NABD & VED).

This definition helps us in a verse like John 17:26:

"I (Jesus) made known to them your name and I will make it known."

Jesus obviously did not come to inform the Apostles that God’s name is YHWH. He came to explain God’s character, His attributes, His will, so that we could come to truly know God and follow His ways. This understanding of the word "name" along with the definition of the next word "baptize" will clear up another misunderstood verse.

Baptize - We always think of being baptized in water, either as infants or adults. Yes, this definition is used many times in the New Testament, but there is also another meaning that we must store in the back of our minds.

Baptize - 1. to unite together, to become closely bound to (TGEL & VED).

Now we will put together the definitions of "name" and "baptize" to get the true meaning of Matthew 28:19. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has this commentary on this verse:

"The phrase in Matthew 28:19, ‘baptize them in the name’ would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one in whose name he was baptized."

With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:

"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles had to go into the world and explain to the Gentiles who God is, who the Son (The Messiah) is, and also about the power that they would receive from God’s Spirit. If we take it to mean that we are to water baptize people in the actual name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, then why is it that no one in the Bible ever uses this formula to water baptize believers?

There is a very strong position held by many scholars that this verse was not part of the original text of Matthew’s Gospel, as Eusebius, a third century Christian apologist, quoted the text in a shorter form rather than the form that now appears in the gospel. It reads,

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name" (which is in agreement with the paraphrase that was just given above).

One commentator writes,

"There is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the gospel, and that in the second century the longer clause supplanted the shorter ‘baptizing them in my name.’ An insertion of this kind, derived from liturgical use, would have rapidly been adopted by copyist and translators" (The International Critical Commentary, by Willoughby C. Allen Volume 26, pp. 307-308).

This position has strong Biblical support by the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Also the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-18 does not mention in any way this trine formula, and the Gospel of Mark is believed to be written before Matthew. But these are the results of using definitions that are different than the ones that the writers used.

Hope this helps clear up your confusion,
Paul

 

[BreadOfLife]

Unfortunately, I guess we don't believe in the same God.

I believe in the God of 1 Corinthians 8:6, which says that, to Paul, there is but one God, the Father. That's the God I go with. I don't see why anybody would want to go beyond that simple declaration and add two other gods, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

I also believe in the God of 1 Cor. 8:6.

The difference between you and me is that I believe in the Gos of the REST of the Scriptures as well, whereas, YOU isolate the definition of God to a single verse - as if that were possible.

 

[Rich R]

An honest study of John's Greek grammar usage proves that John 1:1c is honestly translated as "and the word was a god." This is not referring to false gods as some trinitarians insist, but applies to angels, kings, even judges in scripture.

Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

I scanned the article and it looks good. I'll study it more later on.

It is also grammatically possible the the words, "the word (Greek logos) was God" is describing the quality of the word, i.e. "the word was Godly" or "the word was divine." There are several translations that say it that way, and it makes perfect sense. God had a plan (logos), that plan was with God, and the plan was a Godly or divine plan. The logos describes what was in God's mind from the beginning. It was plan or a blueprint if you will. Like any blueprint, it can later be made into the actual house, One might say the plan became a reality, or as John put it in verse 14, 'the logos became flesh." It's very simple, what was in God's mind all along finally came into fruition.

If it's take like this (or something close anyway), everything makes perfect sense and we are not forced to go outside the scriptures to Pagan doctrine to explain how God became a man. The whole idea of a god-man screams Pagan. 100% man and 100% God is a complete mental disconnect. It's impossible.

Now if someone wants to refute that and say, "with God all things are possible," then what is to preclude the possibility that God is a Martian? Wouldn't that be possible also? If not, why not? There is such a thing as context, and when God said all things are possible He was talking about a specific situation. He was saying that God is able to save depraved mankind (Matt 19:26), a seemingly impossible task. It wasn't meant to be some universal declaration that would open the door to all sorts of nonsense.

God bless you brother!

 

[BreadOfLife]

An honest study of John's Greek grammar usage proves that John 1:1c is honestly translated as "and the word was a god." This is not referring to false gods as some trinitarians insist, but applies to angels, kings, even judges in scripture.

Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

That's absolute nonsense and is nothing more that a Jehovah's Witness lie.

The Scriptures declare that there is only ONE true God - and all the rest are FALSE gods (Exod. 20:1-6, 1 Cor. 8:6). JWs may contradict themselves - but God doesn't.

You've been duped, friend . . .