Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[JudaicChristian]

No apology is needed. It is very difficult to harness the tongue to the truth and in point of fact this can not be done except by the action of the Holy Spirit.

When you say, "The Word was (a) god," you are in reference to what we see in John's gospel and are replying to a very direct question of mine.

John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

English (KJV) Strong's Root Form (Greek) Tense
In ἐν en

the beginning ἀρχή archē

was ἦν ēn

the Word, λόγος logos

and καί kai

the Word λόγος logos

was ἦν ēn

with πρός pros

God, θεός theos

and καί kai

the Word λόγος logos

was ἦν ēn

God. θεός theos

________________________________________________________

NWT = John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
KJV = John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now I know that the views the JW's hold about the Deity of Christ differs from mine. So let’s not bring in our opinions about Theology just yet, let’s stick to Translations.

The NWT says Jesus was ‘a god’ - the KJV(and most every version I’ve ever read) says Jesus ‘was God’.
My question here is simple; “Which one of the above translations is right - “was a godâ€, or “was Godâ€?â€

The Greek and Hebrew languages do not make a distinction. In translating from Greek or Hebrew to English, the scholar must determin if the letter should be upper or lower case, and he must deside if the article (a) should be added. Example: Judaic Christian Forum - No one has ever seen Yahwah

 

[Who Says]

Again I must plead that I am the stupidist of men.

I guarantee God does not work with me because I am smart. For I am surely not.

I got straight D's and F's from about the third grade all the way up until they kicked me out of school at the beginning of the 9th grade. So it is really improper for me to even say I have a sound 8th grade education.

Despite that I have a better command of language and writing than most high school graduates and when I finally in my later adult life decided to go for a GED I did not study hardly at all but for a week's time and went and passed their test just 2% or so below the score of any graduating high school senior in the nation.

How was that possible? I will tell you. God taught me all I needed to know as I studied the Bible.

God is good!!!

But with that said, it makes little sense to me that John would have told us those three things if his point were that Jesus was literally God.

And me in my ignorance honestly see everyone out-smarting themselves.

That is no slur. That is just an honest statement of what I see. You don't have to see it just because I see it. But that is what I honestly see.

When I tell you that I was judged and abandoned by everyone and everything in this life and tossed out naked as an infant in the desert wilderness to be left to just die, I am not exagerating.

But I am glad it happened that way for me when I look around me and see the afflictions of those who were favored. It only made their life and their thinking more complicated.

 

[Sparkey]

Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus was ‘a god’ - the KJV says Jesus ‘was God’.
My question here is simple; “Which one of the above translations is right - “was (a) god =NWT”, or “was God = KJV”?”

The Greek and Hebrew languages do not make a distinction. In translating from Greek or Hebrew to English, the scholar must determin if the letter should be upper or lower case, and he must deside if the article (a) should be added. Example: Judaic Christian Forum - No one has ever seen Yahwah

The example you bring relates to the Hebrew word "Elohim" and I would agree that this particular word can be translated "god" or "God" depending on context. A case could be made that the word "elohim" can sometimes be used in reference to angels. That is not the case for Logos. Jesus was not a logos. Do you have an example other than your reference to elohim that can better illustrate your concept, please? Greek is a very precise and exact language. If your translation of John 1:1 is to be upheld, it introduces inconsistancies to your argument.

If Jesus was with God and was "(a) god" then how do we try to reconcile the truth of the following:
"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6.)

"I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me." (Isa. 45:5.)

"I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 46:9.)

"One God and Father of all, who is above all." (Eph. 4:6.)

"Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut. 6.4.)

Jesus is the Word of God, he became a little lower than the angels (flesh) and upon that flesh the Holy Spirit was poured out without measure. John clearly stated that the Word was God in 1:1 and then later developed the idea further: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." - John 1:14 KJV

The "mystery" is further explained thus:
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." - Ephesians 5:31 KJV

----------------------------------------------------------

"If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work." - John 14:7-10 NIV

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.


"When Jesus said 'I and the Father are one' didn't He just mean they are of one accord, they are merely like-minded?"

Considering the overall content of the Bible, this cannot be:

The Greek word he used, heis, is the word for the number one. It is a reference to the Shema, the core tenet of Judaism, "Sh'ma, Yisrael, Adonai Eloheynu Adonai echad," which, using Christian terminology is, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is our God. Jehovah is one."

John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

John 17:10 [Speaking to the Father] All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.

 

[Who Says]

"If Jesus was with God and was "(a) god" then how do we try to reconcile the truth of the following:
"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6.)"

My simpleton thinking understands that when it says "Beside me there is no God" it is saying they do not exist beside Him in a right of their own.

He can appoint God's beside him and they will exit because he gives them the right. But beside Him no God can exist in a right of their own.

Now that comes from me, an admitted stupid man. So do with it what you will.

 

[Sparkey]

Again I must plead that I am the stupidist of men.

I guarantee God does not work with me because I am smart. For I am surely not.

I got straight D's and F's from about the third grade all the way up until they kicked me out of school at the beginning of the 9th grade. So it is really improper for me to even say I have a sound 8th grade education.

Despite that I have a better command of language and writing than most high school graduates and when I finally in my later adult life decided to go for a GED I did not study hardly at all but for a week's time and went and passed their test just 2% or so below the score of any graduating high school senior in the nation.

Hi, "Who Says"

The guy who calls himself "Sparrow" can match your claim, line by line. I too can only claim to have graduated 8th Grade - and that was Catholic School. My GED came much later when I was 52 years old, back in 2003.

You beat me out in the comparison to the average national high school student score, mine was said to be in the 97th percentile. Therefore my claim would supercede yours. The school of hard knocks teaches well sometimes. Just wanted to say howdee because you sounded like me for a moment. :waving

We have no need that any man should teach us because that is the job of the Holy Spirit.

"But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

He who does not love me will not obey my teaching.

These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.

I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me. "Come now; let us leave." - John 14:22-31 NIV

Jesus has declared our Father and it is only through Him that we might see.

 

[Sparkey]

"If Jesus was with God and was "(a) god" then how do we try to reconcile the truth of the following:
"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6.)"

My simpleton thinking understands that when it says "Beside me there is no God" it is saying they do not exist beside Him in a right of their own.

He can appoint God's beside him and they will exit because he gives them the right. But beside Him no God can exist in a right of their own.

Now that comes from me, an admitted stupid man. So do with it what you will.

That's fair enough as far as it goes but it doesn't deal with Jesus' claim that He and the Father are one.

 

[Who Says]

That's fair enough as far as it goes but it doesn't deal with Jesus' claim that He and the Father are one.

Amen.

But that we too can be one with them as they are one does.

John 17:11 "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

John 17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

 

[Sparkey]

Amen.

But that we too can be one with them as they are one does.

John 17:11 "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

John 17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

Agreed.

 

[Free]

But with that said, it makes little sense to me that John would have told us those three things if his point were that Jesus was literally God.

I'm sure you would agree that everything John says, he says for a reason. And this is why I have continually stated that any Christology or theology proper must take into account all that Scripture reveals about God. What I am about to post is posted more than once around these forums and has yet to receive any substantial attempt at a rebuttal.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word for "was" is en, which denotes a continuous action in the past or absolute existence. In other words, in John's clear allusion to Gen. 1, the Word already was in existence at the beginning of creation. This cannot be understood other than to say that the Word existed for eternity past. This is further supported by verse 3, which I will address in a moment.

John's choice of wording is quite specific with "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It cannot be "a god," as this is polytheism and completely against all of Scripture.His use of language is such that the Word is not equated to all of God or God to all of the Word, which would make Word and God interchangeable. John's point is who the Word is, not who God is. And this leaves only one translation, and that is what is above, which the majority of translations state.

The Word both "was with God" and "was God"--God in nature, yet distinct from God in some way. This is where only the Trinity makes sense.


Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The breakdown of verse 3 is as follows:

P1. If "All things were made through" the Word,
P2. And "Without [the Word] was not any thing made that was made,"
C It follows that the Word could not have been made.

This is in perfect agreement with verse 1, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17 and Acts 3:15.


Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here John uses a significant Greek word for "became," egeneto, which means an action in time. It is also the same word translated as "made" in verse 3. This is very significant because here we see John making a clear distinction between the Word's eternal preexistence in verse 1 (en), with the Word entering into time (egeneto) and becoming flesh.

This is further supported by Phil 2:6-8.


Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Not to mention that all of that is supported by Drew's as-of-yet to be rebutted argument from one of the larger themes of the OT, namely, that Jesus is the embodiment of God as Israel's, and indeed all of Creations, Savior.

And me in my ignorance honestly see everyone out-smarting themselves.

That is no slur. That is just an honest statement of what I see. You don't have to see it just because I see it. But that is what I honestly see.

When I tell you that I was judged and abandoned by everyone and everything in this life and tossed out naked as an infant in the desert wilderness to be left to just die, I am not exagerating.

But I am glad it happened that way for me when I look around me and see the afflictions of those who were favored. It only made their life and their thinking more complicated.

That is because theology proper is complicated. Deeper understanding of Scripture is very difficult as it is the finite mind trying to grasp the infinite God.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Definite and indefinite
The prefixed definite article ha- (with germination of the first consonant in the noun, except where Hebrew phonological rules prohibit the gemination) indicates definiteness.

There is no indefinite article, so that, for example, יד yad can mean either simply ‘hand’ or “a hand.â€

Sporadically in the Bible, especially in Israelian Hebrew material, and more regularly in Mishnaic Hebrew, the numeral “1â€, masc. אחד ehad, fem. אחת ahat serves as the indefinite article, thus, e.g., אחד or איש is ehad, either “one†-man or “a†-manâ€, depending on the context.
John 10:33. "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (or: a god)
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Now I ask you, did Yahshua say he was God, or did he say he was a god?

 

[JudaicChristian]

I'm sure you would agree that everything John says, he says for a reason. And this is why I have continually stated that any Christology or theology proper must take into account all that Scripture reveals about God. What I am about to post is posted more than once around these forums and has yet to receive any substantial attempt at a rebuttal.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word for "was" is en, which denotes a continuous action in the past or absolute existence. In other words, in John's clear allusion to Gen. 1, the Word already was in existence at the beginning of creation. This cannot be understood other than to say that the Word existed for eternity past. This is further supported by verse 3, which I will address in a moment.

John's choice of wording is quite specific with "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It cannot be "a god," as this is polytheism and completely against all of Scripture.His use of language is such that the Word is not equated to all of God or God to all of the Word, which would make Word and God interchangeable. John's point is who the Word is, not who God is. And this leaves only one translation, and that is what is above, which the majority of translations state.

The Word both "was with God" and "was God"--God in nature, yet distinct from God in some way. This is where only the Trinity makes sense.


Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The breakdown of verse 3 is as follows:

P1. If "All things were made through" the Word,
P2. And "Without [the Word] was not any thing made that was made,"
C It follows that the Word could not have been made.

This is in perfect agreement with verse 1, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17 and Acts 3:15.


Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here John uses a significant Greek word for "became," egeneto, which means an action in time. It is also the same word translated as "made" in verse 3. This is very significant because here we see John making a clear distinction between the Word's eternal preexistence in verse 1 (en), with the Word entering into time (egeneto) and becoming flesh.

This is further supported by Phil 2:6-8.


Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Not to mention that all of that is supported by Drew's as-of-yet to be rebutted argument from one of the larger themes of the OT, namely, that Jesus is the embodiment of God as Israel's, and indeed all of Creations, Savior.


That is because theology proper is complicated. Deeper understanding of Scripture is very difficult as it is the finite mind trying to grasp the infinite God.

The Old Testament says that Yahwah our Elohiym created all things. The translation of John is with a Trinitarian twist to it.

 

[Who Says]

That is because theology proper is complicated. Deeper understanding of Scripture is very difficult as it is the finite mind trying to grasp the infinite God.

That would not be the God I know. He is not aloof from us except by the separation caused of our own sin and the corruption it caused to our minds.

I do not wish to play on the complexity of that sin based separation to make this seem beyond the humblest of humans. I would rather dispell that illusion.

I agree with JudaicChristian about what you have said.

 

[Free]

The Old Testament says that Yahwah our Elohiym created all things. The translation of John is with a Trinitarian twist to it.

Like I stated, I have yet to have someone attempt a substantial response to it. Please address the points made in my argument and show me where I might be wrong.

That would not be the God I know. He is not aloof from us except by the separation caused of our own sin and the corruption it caused to our minds.

I do not wish to play on the complexity of that sin based separation to make this seem beyond the humblest of humans. I would rather dispell that illusion.

I agree with JudaicChristian about what you have said.

Of course you would. Any reader of this thread with see that neither of you have attempted to address any of the trinitarian arguments presented so far, yet nothing presented is really that difficult.

If these arguments are false it should be rather easy to show where the trinitarians have gone wrong. Please, feel free to do so rather than so glibly dismissing them.

 

[Who Says]

Like I stated, I have yet to have someone attempt a substantial response to it. Please address the points made in my argument and show me where I might be wrong.



Of course you would. Any reader of this thread with see that neither of you have attempted to address any of the trinitarian arguments presented so far, yet nothing presented is really that difficult.

If these arguments are false it should be rather easy to show where the trinitarians have gone wrong. Please, feel free to do so rather than so glibly dismissing them.

How about laying them out one at a time? Pick one, present it to me, and I will address it, one at a time.

And as logic is built in chains let's try to present them in that chain order, where possible.

 

[Free]

How about laying them out one at a time? Pick one, present it to me, and I will address it, one at a time.

And as logic is built in chains let's try to present them in that chain order, where possible.

What? And just how does my post on John 1 not meet your demands? Please, address my post on John 1 and quit playing these evasive games.

 

[Who Says]

What? And just how does my post on John 1 not meet your demands? Please, address my post on John 1 and quit playing these evasive games.

Not no games.

I told you I am not too brite.

But I just got finished with a real pondering of the earlier posts on this thread and the spirit in me said "You don't really want to get involved with this."

Let's just leave it at I am not brite enough to handle it. That works for me.

:waving

 

[JudaicChristian]

Like I stated, I have yet to have someone attempt a substantial response to it. Please address the points made in my argument and show me where I might be wrong.



Of course you would. Any reader of this thread with see that neither of you have attempted to address any of the trinitarian arguments presented so far, yet nothing presented is really that difficult.

If these arguments are false it should be rather easy to show where the trinitarians have gone wrong. Please, feel free to do so rather than so glibly dismissing them.

Because Trinitarian Christians have removed the name of God from the New Testament, this has caused much confusion. I have been answering your questions, but you are not listening to me. The Old Testament says that Elohiym who is Yahwah created all things. This world was created by Yahwah for Yahshua. Yahshua was a god among many Sons of God, whom Yahwah made His very own.
Acts 13:33
he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’

John 10:33. "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (or: a god)
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Now I ask you, did Yahshua say he was God, or did he say he was a god?

 

[Free]

Not no games.

I told you I am not too brite.

But I just got finished with a real pondering of the earlier posts on this thread and the spirit in me said "You don't really want to get involved with this."

Let's just leave it at I am not brite enough to handle it. That works for me.

:waving

Post #429, the one about which you stated "I agree with JudaicChristian about what you have said." That is the post to which I have been referring since then. If you agree with JudaicChristian that "The translation of John is with a Trinitarian twist to it," then please show me where my error in reasoning is.

Because Trinitarian Christians have removed the name of God from the New Testament, this has caused much confusion. I have been answering your questions, but you are not listening to me. The Old Testament says that Elohiym who is Yahwah created all things. This world was created by Yahwah for Yahshua. Yahshua was a god among many Sons of God, whom Yahwah made His very own.
Acts 13:33
he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’

John 10:33. "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (or: a god)
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Now I ask you, did Yahshua say he was God, or did he say he was a god?

You are once again begging the question, just as you did in your previous post:

"The Old Testament says that Yahwah our Elohiym created all things. The translation of John is with a Trinitarian twist to it."

This is a constant problem in this thread. Some of you seem to think that to refute arguments all you need to do is post a few verses that seem to show the trinitarian position is false. Not only do those verses fit within the doctrine of the Trinity, and in fact, are precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity exists, you continue to evade the stronger arguments of the trinitarians.

That "The Old Testament says that Yahwah our Elohiym created all things," is not what this thread is about nor does it address my post or prove the Trinity false. Address the points I made in post #429 directly, one at a time, and show me where I am wrong.

 

[Drew]

How about laying them out one at a time? Pick one, present it to me, and I will address it, one at a time.

And as logic is built in chains let's try to present them in that chain order, where possible.

You guys have been repeatedly reminded about posts 85 and 86 and you all, repeat all, remain entirely silent in terms of what would pass a serious enagement of that argument.

Not to mention the post I made about the "hen metaphor". No one has taken that argument on, either.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Post #429, the one about which you stated "I agree with JudaicChristian about what you have said." That is the post to which I have been referring since then. If you agree with JudaicChristian that "The translation of John is with a Trinitarian twist to it," then please show me where my error in reasoning is.



You are once again begging the question, just as you did in your previous post:

"The Old Testament says that Yahwah our Elohiym created all things. The translation of John is with a Trinitarian twist to it."

This is a constant problem in this thread. Some of you seem to think that to refute arguments all you need to do is post a few verses that seem to show the trinitarian position is false. Not only do those verses fit within the doctrine of the Trinity, and in fact, are precisely why the doctrine of the Trinity exists, you continue to evade the stronger arguments of the trinitarians.

That "The Old Testament says that Yahwah our Elohiym created all things," is not what this thread is about nor does it address my post or prove the Trinity false. Address the points I made in post #429 directly, one at a time, and show me where I am wrong.

Yahshua worked to fulfill prophecy by establishing God's Holy Name in the New Testament. But Trinitarian Christians burned the originals to establish there own version of scriptures.
Hebrews 2:12
He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.â€
If this is not true, then show us God's actual personal name in the New Testament.