Data On The Trinity

[gordon777]

No we have it ESTABLISHED, WHY JESUS DID NOT COME TO DO HIS OWN WILL, AS HE DID NOT AND COULD NOT JUDGE AFTER THE SIGHT OF HIS OWN EYES THROUGH THE EYES OF THE SPIRIT.


John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Isaiah 11: 2 And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

 

[gordon777]

Go and deceive the foolish, you are foolish in your answers to me, I can show every purpose to every word Jesus told us. ( or I will make sure you are seen lying in every singular word you can make.)

 

[Peterlag]

Presenting facts is not the example of Christ and the Apostles, laying their lives down is.


John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Here's a few more facts...

Jesus Christ would have always had those things that the Scripture says he was “given” if he was the eternal God. Christ was:

• Given “all authority” Matthew 28:18).
• Given “a name above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
• Given work to finish by the Father (John 5:36).
• Given those who believed in him by the Father (John 6:39, 10:29).
• Given glory (John 17:22, 24).
• Given his “cup” [his torture and death] by the Father (John 18:11).
• “Seated” at God’s own right hand (Ephesians 1:20-21).
• “Appointed” over the Church (Ephesians 1:22).

These verses and others like them make no sense if Christ is “co-equal” with the Father because taken at face value they show Jesus is a man approved of God.

 

[Peterlag]

I haven't attacked you. Disagreement and debate are not attacks. You present your interpretations of the facts, which I, and the vast majority of Christians in history, disagree with. I provide a rebuttal of your interpretations with interpretations that the vast majority of Christians in history would agree with, which you then ignore.

Are you going to address my rebuttal?

You lost me again on the rebuttal. Here's a few more facts...

Jesus Christ would have always had those things that the Scripture says he was “given” if he was the eternal God. Christ was:

• Given “all authority” Matthew 28:18).
• Given “a name above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
• Given work to finish by the Father (John 5:36).
• Given those who believed in him by the Father (John 6:39, 10:29).
• Given glory (John 17:22, 24).
• Given his “cup” [his torture and death] by the Father (John 18:11).
• “Seated” at God’s own right hand (Ephesians 1:20-21).
• “Appointed” over the Church (Ephesians 1:22).

These verses and others like them make no sense if Christ is “co-equal” with the Father because taken at face value they show Jesus is a man approved of God.

 

[jaybo]

You lost me again on the rebuttal. Here's a few more facts...

Jesus Christ would have always had those things that the Scripture says he was “given” if he was the eternal God. Christ was:

• Given “all authority” Matthew 28:18).
• Given “a name above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
• Given work to finish by the Father (John 5:36).
• Given those who believed in him by the Father (John 6:39, 10:29).
• Given glory (John 17:22, 24).
• Given his “cup” [his torture and death] by the Father (John 18:11).
• “Seated” at God’s own right hand (Ephesians 1:20-21).
• “Appointed” over the Church (Ephesians 1:22).

These verses and others like them make no sense if Christ is “co-equal” with the Father because taken at face value they show Jesus is a man approved of God.

Jesus was God but became human. He emptied Himself of His divinity in order to accomplish His Father's will. Then was killed, thereby paying the price for all sin, and was resurrected to be at the right hand of God, His Father.

Gospel 101.

 

[Randy]

Jesus came not to do the will of a man, that is why He does the will of God( He is God) and returned to Heaven and always was in Heaven.

Christ could not please Himself, otherwise it cannot be that the reproaches of those that reproached the Lord fell on Him( the Lord Jesus Christ.)




Psalm 69:7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face.
8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.

Psalm 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Romans 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

He did not come to do His will either nor was it His doing. The Father sent Him. He came to do the Fathers will and it wasn't His message but the Fathers message. All that understanding can be found in the NT.

 

[Free]

You will answer soon why you doctrine in life is to discredit the Son of God, and your looking away from how it is impossible for Christ born of the Spirit and anointed of the Spirit, to have any will different to the Spirit, that IS BLASPHEMY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

Go and deceive the foolish, you are foolish in your answers to me, I can show every purpose to every word Jesus told us. ( or I will make sure you are seen lying in every singular word you can make.)

On the contrary, you will answer for your pride and sinful judgements of others. In no way whatsoever am I discrediting the Son of God. Do you believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man?

No we have it ESTABLISHED, WHY JESUS DID NOT COME TO DO HIS OWN WILL, AS HE DID NOT AND COULD NOT JUDGE AFTER THE SIGHT OF HIS OWN EYES THROUGH THE EYES OF THE SPIRIT.


John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

As I pointed out, those words--"not to do mine own will"--make no sense if Jesus actually didn't have his own will.

 

[Free]

You lost me again on the rebuttal.

How so? It is very clearly laid out.

You stated: "John 1:3 could very well be referring to God."

I didn't address this, but, no, it cannot be referring to God because it is referring to the Word. John 1:1 is about who the Word is, not who God is. We see that John 1:2 continues discussing the Word, and down through to verse 5.

You stated: "I don't see how you get Jesus from logos. Again... It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.)"

I replied: "You have your argument backwards. You should be looking at those times when both the NIV and KJV capitalize "Word." They may disagree elsewhere, but what does it say when they do agree?"

You seem like you don't want to answer that question, so I will:

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

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.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

I also replied: "Of course, a serious student of the Bible also knows that context determines meaning. It's the relationship between the words in a verse or passage that determines the particular meaning used. In John 1:1-18, we see that the logos was both "with God" and "was God." Perhaps you can show us where else in the Bible the logos is said to be God. It is that very logos that becomes (enters into time) flesh and makes his dwelling among us as the Son of God."

It seems that you don't understand how important context is.

I also posted: 'Context determines meaning. This is especially important to keep in mind when we speak of Jesus, as words or phrases (Son of God, for example) have a different meaning when applied to him than when applied to others. The whole point of John's prologue (1:1-18) is to state who the Word is. So, let's look a bit more closely at 1:1.

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

The word "was" is the Greek en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and denotes a continuous action in the past. That is, when the beginning began (creation), the Word was already in existence; it is absolute existence, eternal preexistence.

Then when we look at "with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses direction towards as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy.

"Was God" means that the Word was divine in nature. It can never mean "a god" or another "God," as both imply polytheism. Again, this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is.

Even apart from the Greek, if logos is simply spoken words, then none of John 1:1 makes sense, but the Greek makes it all the more clear. It is very difficult to see how spoken words could have existed for eternity past or how they can be said to be in intimate relationship with God or how they can be said to be divine in nature. Only God has existed for eternity past, only a person could be in intimate relationship with another, and only God is divine in nature.'


There is more context I didn't mention before but it has bearing on the matter. Note that after John 1:5, the discussion briefly changes to John the Baptist, who "came as a witness, to bear witness about the light" (vvs 7-8). This "true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world" (vs 9). Then, verse 10 links back to verse 3 by saying "the world was made through him." Verse 12 states that "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." The light clearly refers to Jesus, the pre-Incarnate Word who was coming into the world, of whom John witnessed, and in whom alone believing in his name gives on "the right to become children of God."

All of that refutes your argument that Jesus isn't the logos and your subsequent "proof," which ignores all the context I gave in response. If you still believe your understanding is correct, then you need to clearly refute each point I have given.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus was God but became human. He emptied Himself of His divinity in order to accomplish His Father's will. Then was killed, thereby paying the price for all sin, and was resurrected to be at the right hand of God, His Father.

Gospel 101.

There are a number of other New Testament verses that state Jesus was a man and we can see them in places like Romans that says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

 

[Peterlag]

How so? It is very clearly laid out.

You stated: "John 1:3 could very well be referring to God."

I didn't address this, but, no, it cannot be referring to God because it is referring to the Word. John 1:1 is about who the Word is, not who God is. We see that John 1:2 continues discussing the Word, and down through to verse 5.

You stated: "I don't see how you get Jesus from logos. Again... It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.)"

I replied: "You have your argument backwards. You should be looking at those times when both the NIV and KJV capitalize "Word." They may disagree elsewhere, but what does it say when they do agree?"

You seem like you don't want to answer that question, so I will:

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

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.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

I also replied: "Of course, a serious student of the Bible also knows that context determines meaning. It's the relationship between the words in a verse or passage that determines the particular meaning used. In John 1:1-18, we see that the logos was both "with God" and "was God." Perhaps you can show us where else in the Bible the logos is said to be God. It is that very logos that becomes (enters into time) flesh and makes his dwelling among us as the Son of God."

It seems that you don't understand how important context is.

I also posted: 'Context determines meaning. This is especially important to keep in mind when we speak of Jesus, as words or phrases (Son of God, for example) have a different meaning when applied to him than when applied to others. The whole point of John's prologue (1:1-18) is to state who the Word is. So, let's look a bit more closely at 1:1.

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

The word "was" is the Greek en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and denotes a continuous action in the past. That is, when the beginning began (creation), the Word was already in existence; it is absolute existence, eternal preexistence.

Then when we look at "with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses direction towards as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy.

"Was God" means that the Word was divine in nature. It can never mean "a god" or another "God," as both imply polytheism. Again, this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is.

Even apart from the Greek, if logos is simply spoken words, then none of John 1:1 makes sense, but the Greek makes it all the more clear. It is very difficult to see how spoken words could have existed for eternity past or how they can be said to be in intimate relationship with God or how they can be said to be divine in nature. Only God has existed for eternity past, only a person could be in intimate relationship with another, and only God is divine in nature.'


There is more context I didn't mention before but it has bearing on the matter. Note that after John 1:5, the discussion briefly changes to John the Baptist, who "came as a witness, to bear witness about the light" (vvs 7-8). This "true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world" (vs 9). Then, verse 10 links back to verse 3 by saying "the world was made through him." Verse 12 states that "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." The light clearly refers to Jesus, the pre-Incarnate Word who was coming into the world, of whom John witnessed, and in whom alone believing in his name gives on "the right to become children of God."

All of that refutes your argument that Jesus isn't the logos and your subsequent "proof," which ignores all the context I gave in response. If you still believe your understanding is correct, then you need to clearly refute each point I have given.

I replied: "You have your argument backwards. You should be looking at those times when both the NIV and KJV capitalize "Word." They may disagree elsewhere, but what does it say when they do agree?"
You seem like you don't want to answer that question, so I will:

It is and never will be a standard for truth because to guys translated something the same. Understanding the truth of God's Word is not based on a numbers game. If it were the trinity would be correct since most believe it to be true. Thus, I did not respond to that because I did not think it an intelligent question. Most of the entire Christian world believe in the trinity because it's what the Catholics taught.

 

[Free]

I replied: "You have your argument backwards. You should be looking at those times when both the NIV and KJV capitalize "Word." They may disagree elsewhere, but what does it say when they do agree?"
You seem like you don't want to answer that question, so I will:

It is and never will be a standard for truth because to guys translated something the same. Understanding the truth of God's Word is not based on a numbers game. If it were the trinity would be correct since most believe it to be true. Thus, I did not respond to that because I did not think it an intelligent question. Most of the entire Christian world believe in the trinity because it's what the Catholics taught.

I wasn't playing a numbers game; I was merely responding to your numbers game. This is what you previously stated:

"However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator's decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture."

I simply asked what the same verses state in the NIV and KJV when the both capitalize logos, since that was a part of your argument. But you always seem to have an excuse to not respond to any of my questions or points. Most Christians believe the Trinity because it best expresses the full revelation of God to us by taking all into account.

 

[Free]

There are a number of other New Testament verses that state Jesus was a man and we can see them in places like Romans that says a man (Adam) caused sin to enter into the world, and also that a man would have to redeem it from sin. Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).

Case in point. You are only taking part of the revelation of God by looking only at those verses that state Jesus was a man. The problem, then, is that you use these to either overrule those that clearly teach he is also God or just ignore those verses altogether. Your understanding doesn't take into account all that the Bible reveals to us about the nature of God.

 

[Peterlag]

I wasn't playing a numbers game; I was merely responding to your numbers game. This is what you previously stated:

"However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator's decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture."

I simply asked what the same verses state in the NIV and KJV when the both capitalize logos, since that was a part of your argument. But you always seem to have an excuse to not respond to any of my questions or points. Most Christians believe the Trinity because it best expresses the full revelation of God to us by taking all into account.

What I really wanted to know for so many years is why? Why do Christians world wide need to believe Jesus is God? I have asked before but always get the same answer which is because the Bible says so. It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach.

 

[Free]

What I really wanted to know for so many years is why? Why do Christians world wide need to believe Jesus is God? I have asked before but always get the same answer which is because the Bible says so.

Why don't you like that answer? Jesus is the central figure of the entire Bible and in whom alone me must believe in to be saved. So, it stands to reason that we just cannot believe whatever we want about Jesus and expect to be saved. If the Bible says Jesus is God, then that is what we must believe.

If Jesus isn't God, there is no salvation. Or worse, we could then save ourselves by living perfect lives, and Jesus's death was unnecessary and ineffectual for anyone but him.

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach.

Why should it be clearly stated, simply because it would make it easier? All the foundations of the Trinity are clearly given in the Bible and early Church writings, that is what matters; it is actually how the doctrine came about.

 

[Peterlag]

I replied: "You have your argument backwards. You should be looking at those times when both the NIV and KJV capitalize "Word." They may disagree elsewhere, but what does it say when they do agree?"
You seem like you don't want to answer that question, so I will:

It is and never will be a standard for truth because to guys translated something the same. Understanding the truth of God's Word is not based on a numbers game. If it were the trinity would be correct since most believe it to be true. Thus, I did not respond to that because I did not think it an intelligent question. Most of the entire Christian world believe in the trinity because it's what the Catholics taught.

You like this John 1:3 so let's get more into it...
The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as "it." It does not have to be translated as "him" and it does not have to refer to a "person" in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that "the Word" is a person is that the pronoun "he" is used with it. The Greek text does of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, the Greek assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, "la table" while a desk is masculine, "le bureau" and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate "the table, she" or "the desk, he." And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation "it" for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.

 

[jaybo]

What I really wanted to know for so many years is why? Why do Christians world wide need to believe Jesus is God? I have asked before but always get the same answer which is because the Bible says so. It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach.

It is clearly stated in the Bible. You just have to learn how to read it.

 

[jaybo]

You like this John 1:3 so let's get more into it...
The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as "it." It does not have to be translated as "him" and it does not have to refer to a "person" in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that "the Word" is a person is that the pronoun "he" is used with it. The Greek text does of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, the Greek assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, "la table" while a desk is masculine, "le bureau" and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate "the table, she" or "the desk, he." And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation "it" for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.

John 1:3, " All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created." NET

What is so complicated about this verse? And what is the pronoun you're referring to? "him"? It makes no sense to say that "All things were created by it" (if that's what you mean), particularly if you read it in context.

 

[Free]

You like this John 1:3 so let's get more into it...
The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as "it." It does not have to be translated as "him" and it does not have to refer to a "person" in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that "the Word" is a person is that the pronoun "he" is used with it. The Greek text does of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, the Greek assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, "la table" while a desk is masculine, "le bureau" and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate "the table, she" or "the desk, he." And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation "it" for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.

Yes, I know all that. The problem is, you want to divorce this verse from the rest of the context. You just want to take one verse at a time, but that is where the problem of ignoring context begins. I stated previously that word meanings are determined by the relationships between the words.

So, you can’t ignore that the Word is God, the Word is the true light that came into the world, and that the light is Jesus. Contextually, then, there is every reason to have “he” in verse 3, even while ignoring gender, and understand that the Word is Jesus.

 

[gordon777]

Believing that God is love, is believing that the love of God only, is what died for us, while we were yet sinners and those who are yet sinners, abide still in unbelief.

That is all that matters, and all the talk that is completed for years on these forums( on all the internet) will save nobody and instead they will condemn for speaking too many words instead of doing all the real good Jesus has shown He did.

 

[Randy]

Believing that God is love, is believing that the love of God only, is what died for us, while we were yet sinners and those who are yet sinners, abide still in unbelief.

That is all that matters, and all the talk that is completed for years on these forums( on all the internet) will save nobody and instead they will condemn for speaking too many words instead of doing all the real good Jesus has shown He did.

I don't see that love in your words. You are still pronouncing judgment on others. For what? Speaking words?

Gods criteria
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

You clearly post words yourself when you want. You think this would cause Jesus to drive you away or reject you?

All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

The only one found worthy to judge others is Jesus.
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits a of God sent out into all the earth. 7He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased for God
persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.”

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.