The logic of Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses...

[kcnalp]

I have only said what is true. Inform yourself and learn what the Greek words mean.

Your opinions do not overrule all of our Christian Bibles.

 

[101G]

again when we compare scripture with scripture, then doctrine are exposed. this explanation that the LORD JESUS went through someone else is exposed in Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

now another revelation right here in Isaiah 44:24. if he was alone: which means, having no one else present. no one else present? are the other two person suppose to be omnipresent? well that second and third person error is exposed.

PICJAG.

 

[marks]

The word God and divine have the same meaning, both mean "power", so it doesn't matter which word one use, I used "divine" at the end to make it clear that this is not about a person, since most people think of a person by default when they hear the word "God". That the definite article in front of "God" in the phrase "the word was God" is missing, strengthens this statement.

This may fit your theology, but I don't think it fits the text well at all, either by the meanings of the words, or by their grammar/syntax.

Much love!

 

[justbyfaith]

LETS STOP RIGHT HERE. and this is the Son, 1 Timothy 6:16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

is the person in Isaiah 57:15 the same person in 1 Timothy 6:16? YES or NO.

your answer please.

PICJAG.

The answer is yes of course (sorry I didn't get to answering you sooner, I stepped away from the computer to do my devotions).

The Father and the Son are in fact the same Spirit and therefore they are the same Person; however they are distinct from one another in that one is come in the flesh and the other isn't.

 

[marks]

I have only said what is true. Inform yourself and learn what the Greek words mean.

That's how I know this isn't correct. You are trying to make it say something it doesn't.

Much love!

 

[101G]

@101G,

I would suggest reading the whole of my post:
He descended to become a Man (He is come in the flesh).

thanks for the reply. "he", who decended, to become a man, is one PERSON, and if "he" is the Father that desended then he who is the Father is the Son. for if you say no it was the son who decended, then JBF you have two separate and distinct CREATORS. for it was the Father who created all things, who is Jesus.

but now you have a bigger problem. what of "he" that desended? because John 3:13 states he who desended is he who is in heaven, as well as the sameone on EARTH. so please explain.

PICJAG

 

[101G]

@janc2, well, "Through the word and not from the word". is not working anymore, want try again with something difference?

PICJAG.

 

[janc2]

You don't mean that the words are defined the same, do you?

Much love!

The meaning of these words is the same like the Hebrew word El, which means "mighty or power".
One have to consider the context to know what meaning is to take, in the first phrase with "Theos" of course God as a person is meant, in the last phrase, where the definite article before the word "Theos" is missing, no person is meant. The author of the Gospel did not leave out the article without a reason.

 

[marks]

The meaning of these words is the same like the Hebrew word El, which means "mighty or power".
One have to consider the context to know what meaning is to take, in the first phrase with "Theos" of course God as a person is meant, in the last phrase, where the definite article before the word "Theos" is missing, no person is meant. The author of the Gospel did not leave out the article without a reason.

I would agree, that was not without reason. A.T. Robertson likewise agrees,

Here's from Robertson's Word Pictures,

And the Word was God (kai qeo hn o logo). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeo hn o logo. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logo and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logo) and the predicate without it (qeo) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeo can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeo agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logo sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

John 1:1 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Much love!

 

[janc2]

That's how I know this isn't correct. You are trying to make it say something it doesn't.

Much love!

I would agree, that was not without reason. A.T. Robertson likewise agrees,

Here's from Robertson's Word Pictures,

And the Word was God (kai qeo hn o logo). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeo hn o logo. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logo and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logo) and the predicate without it (qeo) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeo can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeo agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logo sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

John 1:1 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Much love!

hutos, definitions: ....this or that.... G3778 - hoytos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)

autos, definitions: .....that...... G846 - autos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)

 

[101G]

it's amazing how people cannot accept the truth when it is staring them in the eyes, how long must one believe a lie befor they believe the truth. no christian, who believe in three persons in the Godhead have any right to tell Israel of their blindness when they are just as blind as Israel.

it's like the pot calling the kettle black when the pot is just as black. but the scriptures are correct, Revelation 22:11 and Matthew 8:22

PICJAG.

 

[janc2]

I would agree, that was not without reason. A.T. Robertson likewise agrees,

Here's from Robertson's Word Pictures,

And the Word was God (kai qeo hn o logo). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeo hn o logo. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logo and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logo) and the predicate without it (qeo) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeo can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeo agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logo sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

John 1:1 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Much love!

Why do you not understand what I am saying?

 

[justbyfaith]

thanks for the reply. "he", who decended, to become a man, is one PERSON, and if "he" is the Father that desended then he who is the Father is the Son. for if you say no it was the son who decended, then JBF you have two separate and distinct CREATORS. for it was the Father who created all things, who is Jesus.

but now you have a bigger problem. what of "he" that desended? because John 3:13 states he who desended is he who is in heaven, as well as the sameone on EARTH. so please explain.

PICJAG

I'm really not sure why you keep lumping me in with those who do not believe that it was the Father who descended to become a Man. In doing so, He became the Son. But He also did not cease to dwell in eternity as the everlasting Father. Jesus is also the same, everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6). I say to you truly that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Pre-incarnate, He was the Father. It's not too complicated to understand, really. The same Spirit who indwelleth the Son, also inhabiteth eternity.

 

[marks]

Why do you not understand what I am saying?

What is it you are thinking I'm not understanding?

Much love!

 

[marks]

The meaning of these words is the same like the Hebrew word El, which means "mighty or power".

Are you saying this is what logos means?

Much love!

 

[janc2]

What is it you are thinking I'm not understanding?

Much love!

It doesn't matter if at the end is written God, or Divine, or Mighty, all these words have the same meaning. But I took divine to make it clear to the reader that this word is not written as a person, because nowadays people think of the word "God" as a person by default. And the word is not the Father as person but the expression of God's mind, so I don't believe in "Sabellianism", I try to explain that the Son is not the Father but the Father in the Son. The Son himself said: "My Father is greater than I" and "The words I speak are not mine". The Son is not God, but God's begotten Son, who exists since his birth and in whom God is.

 

[janc2]

Are you saying this is what logos means?

Much love!

Is not the word of him Mighty?
The word of a man is human, so it is weak, but his word is powerful, for he himself is strong.

 

[justbyfaith]

@janc2,

If you do not believe that Jesus is the great I AM, you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

 

[marks]

Is not the word of him Mighty?
The word of a man is human, so it is weak, but his word is powerful, for he himself is strong.

I always appreciated what Walter Martin used to say, "Words have meanings."

You interpretation seems quite loose, and not very well based in the actual words used.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It doesn't matter if at the end is written God, or Divine, or Mighty, all these words have the same meaning. But I took divine to make it clear to the reader that this word is not written as a person, because nowadays people think of the word "God" as a person by default. And the word is not the Father as person but the expression of God's mind, so I don't believe in "Sabellianism", I try to explain that the Son is not the Father but the Father in the Son. The Son himself said: "My Father is greater than I" and "The words I speak are not mine". The Son is not God, but God's begotten Son, who exists since his birth and in whom God is.

It matters to me. They don't in fact all mean the same thing. But there is no point in arguing about the meanings of words.

Much love!