Data On The Trinity

[Consecrated Life]

If Jesus had no beginning then by definition He can be nothing less than God.
In all this going round & round I have never once heard anyone dare to speak of a time when Jesus did not exist .
They know better than to even attempt it .
The silence on this fundamental fact shouts that He is God .

 

[Peterlag]

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.

Hope this helps...

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word] and without it was not anything made that was made.

The same with John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Greek language "spirit" is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun "it." So verse 17 should be literally translated as "The world cannot accept it (the spirit) because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in you." Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, and not masculine.

 

[Peterlag]

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.

I see it this way...

Hope this helps...

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word] and without it was not anything made that was made.

The same with John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Greek language "spirit" is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun "it." So verse 17 should be literally translated as "The world cannot accept it (the spirit) because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in you." Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, and not masculine.

 

[Free]

I see it this way...

Hope this helps...

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word] and without it was not anything made that was made.

What do you mean by "divine"?

The same with John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Greek language "spirit" is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun "it." So verse 17 should be literally translated as "The world cannot accept it (the spirit) because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in you." Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, and not masculine.

It is interesting is that you're arguing to gender to justify referring to the Spirit as "it," even saying that "Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, and not masculine." And I don't disagree that "spirit" is neuter in gender. Yet, when it comes to the gender of Word, you previously argued that '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.' You then go on to provide a lengthy explanation as to why it 'can legitimately be translated as "it",' despite the masculine gender.

You want to have it both ways. The problem, as I have pointed out several times and you have failed to address just as often, is that you ignore context. In both instances, the contexts, both the immediate and the larger context of all of Scripture, leave no doubt that both are persons and should be referred to as "he."

 

[jaybo]

Hope this helps...

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word] and without it was not anything made that was made.

The same with John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Greek language "spirit" is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun "it." So verse 17 should be literally translated as "The world cannot accept it (the spirit) because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in you." Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, and not masculine.

a) What are your translation qualifications and methodology?
b) Translations from one language to another is more than the substitution of words. a) Words always mean something in context, and b) the best translation is that which communicates the thoughts and meanings of the source document to that culture and the thoughts and meanings of the destination document to that culture.

Clearly, instead of translating what John meant when he wrote in Greek, you re translating what you think he wrote based on rigid rules of grammar. Why do the vast majority of English translations differ from your "translation" of John's writings?

Have a look here -- https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 1:1 -- and you will see that virtually every single translation has "the Word was God" as the English wording.

The same principle applies to John 14:17. Virtually every single translation has "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you." NET (and every other translation)

It's clear that you have decided on a concept, then mistranslate the Greek to fit your presupposed interpretation. You are clearly mistaken.

 

[Peterlag]

a) What are your translation qualifications and methodology?
b) Translations from one language to another is more than the substitution of words. a) Words always mean something in context, and b) the best translation is that which communicates the thoughts and meanings of the source document to that culture and the thoughts and meanings of the destination document to that culture.

Clearly, instead of translating what John meant when he wrote in Greek, you re translating what you think he wrote based on rigid rules of grammar. Why do the vast majority of English translations differ from your "translation" of John's writings?

Have a look here -- https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John 1:1 -- and you will see that virtually every single translation has "the Word was God" as the English wording.

The same principle applies to John 14:17. Virtually every single translation has "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you." NET (and every other translation)

It's clear that you have decided on a concept, then mistranslate the Greek to fit your presupposed interpretation. You are clearly mistaken.

Here's 4 Bibles on John 14:17...

Literal Standard Version
the Spirit of truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it does not see nor know [this] One, and you know [this] One, because [this] One remains with you, and will be in you.

New American Bible
the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.

A Faithful Version
Even the Spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive because it perceives it not, nor knows it; but you know it because it dwells with you, and shall be within you.

Smith's Literal Translation
The Spirit of truth; which the world cannot receive, for it sees it not, neither knows: and ye know it; for it shall remain with you, and shall be in you.

 

[Peterlag]

What do you mean by "divine"?


It is interesting is that you're arguing to gender to justify referring to the Spirit as "it," even saying that "Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, and not masculine." And I don't disagree that "spirit" is neuter in gender. Yet, when it comes to the gender of Word, you previously argued that '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.' You then go on to provide a lengthy explanation as to why it 'can legitimately be translated as "it",' despite the masculine gender.

You want to have it both ways. The problem, as I have pointed out several times and you have failed to address just as often, is that you ignore context. In both instances, the contexts, both the immediate and the larger context of all of Scripture, leave no doubt that both are persons and should be referred to as "he."

What do you mean by "divine"?


It is interesting is that you're arguing to gender to justify referring to the Spirit as "it," even saying that "Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, and not masculine." And I don't disagree that "spirit" is neuter in gender. Yet, when it comes to the gender of Word, you previously argued that '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.' You then go on to provide a lengthy explanation as to why it 'can legitimately be translated as "it",' despite the masculine gender.

You want to have it both ways. The problem, as I have pointed out several times and you have failed to address just as often, is that you ignore context. In both instances, the contexts, both the immediate and the larger context of all of Scripture, leave no doubt that both are persons and should be referred to as "he."

See I don't ignore you. You simply will not accept my comments. Now here you are saying in French, for example, a table is feminine, "la table" while a desk is masculine. So then according to you a table is a woman and a desk is a man. Yeah it's not that I want it both ways. It's that I understand a desk is not a person.

 

[Free]

See I don't ignore you. You simply will not accept my comments. Now here you are saying in French, for example, a table is feminine, "la table" while a desk is masculine. So then according to you a table is a woman and a desk is a man. Yeah it's not that I want it both ways. It's that I understand a desk is not a person.

How is it that you don't even see what you have written, even when I have clearly laid it out, and so misunderstand what I am saying? It has nothing to do with me simply not accepting your comments. I don't accept your comments because they are lacking coherence and sound reasoning.

First you argued that even though logos is masculine, that doesn't justify the use of the pronoun "he." You provided a lengthy explanation as to why 'The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as "it".'

Then you argued that "spirit" in the Greek is neuter and on that basis should be referred to with the pronoun "it."

While what you have said in the first case is technically correct, how can you not see that you are arguing both ways in an attempt to justify your position? Why is it that you continue to ignore the context of these verses, which I have laid out in a bit of detail for logos? And you do so even after I have said more than once that context--the relationships between the words--is what determines meaning. You are completely divorcing these verses from the context and so come up with meanings that contradict the context. Stop taking verses in isolation. That is the quickest way to end up in error.

You also didn't answer my question: What do you mean by "divine"?

 

[jaybo]

Here's 4 Bibles on John 14:17...

Literal Standard Version
the Spirit of truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it does not see nor know [this] One, and you know [this] One, because [this] One remains with you, and will be in you.

New American Bible
the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.

A Faithful Version
Even the Spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive because it perceives it not, nor knows it; but you know it because it dwells with you, and shall be within you.

Smith's Literal Translation
The Spirit of truth; which the world cannot receive, for it sees it not, neither knows: and ye know it; for it shall remain with you, and shall be in you.

I repeat...

a) What are your translation qualifications and methodology?
b) Translations from one language to another is more than the substitution of words. a) Words always mean something in context, and b) the best translation is that which communicates the thoughts and meanings of the source document to that culture and the thoughts and meanings of the destination document to that culture.

Quoting a single verse from four translations, selected to prove your point, means nothing. It is simple to find any (mis)translations of a single verse.

 

[Peterlag]

How is it that you don't even see what you have written, even when I have clearly laid it out, and so misunderstand what I am saying? It has nothing to do with me simply not accepting your comments. I don't accept your comments because they are lacking coherence and sound reasoning.

First you argued that even though logos is masculine, that doesn't justify the use of the pronoun "he." You provided a lengthy explanation as to why 'The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as "it".'

Then you argued that "spirit" in the Greek is neuter and on that basis should be referred to with the pronoun "it."

While what you have said in the first case is technically correct, how can you not see that you are arguing both ways in an attempt to justify your position? Why is it that you continue to ignore the context of these verses, which I have laid out in a bit of detail for logos? And you do so even after I have said more than once that context--the relationships between the words--is what determines meaning. You are completely divorcing these verses from the context and so come up with meanings that contradict the context. Stop taking verses in isolation. That is the quickest way to end up in error.

You also didn't answer my question: What do you mean by "divine"?

I am not taking any of the Scripture out of context. The first rule I learned in my first Bible class. Jesus was divine. He was created from something that God put in Mary's body and whatever it was put God in a position to call him His son. That would make him divine and it's that divine that the Jews wanted to stone him for because to be that divine put Jesus on the same level as God. The Jews would not want to stone him if they thought he said he was God. For that they would have just thought he was insane.

 

[Free]

I am not taking any of the Scripture out of context.

You're taking a lot of Scripture out of context. Your interpretation of John 1:3, believing that "it" is legitimate, for example, is because you're ignoring the context of John 1:1-18. I gave a fair bit of that context, which you have still ignored, that shows Jesus is the Word and why the correct translation in verse 3 (and 2) is "he;" that it cannot be "it."

You have also ignored the context of John 14:17, in making your argument that the correct pronoun for "spirit" is "it."

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

First, Jesus says the Father "will give . . . another Helper." What is "another" if not one like himself? And what is a "Helper"? When we look at the Greek, parakletos, it means "comforter" or better, "advocate." Interestingly, the noun is masculine, which argues against your insistence that because "spirit" is neuter, it should be referred to as "it." But more importantly than that, an advocate can only be thought of as a person. Persons advocate for other persons. "Its" cannot advocate for anyone or anything.

Parakletos is used only 5 times in the NT. In addition to John 14:6, we have:

Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

Joh 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"

Joh 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."
Joh 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;

1Joh 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Notice the actions of this other Advocate: teaches; brings things to remembrance; testifies; convicts. These are actions of agency, of a person, not an "it." And Jesus says it is for their advantage that he leave and send this Advocate. How is it, then, that having an "it" would be to their advantage? Could a desk, chair, or rock do any of these things or be of an advantage when Jesus left?

The first rule I learned in my first Bible class. Jesus was divine. He was created from something that God put in Mary's body and whatever it was put God in a position to call him His son. That would make him divine and it's that divine that the Jews wanted to stone him for because to be that divine put Jesus on the same level as God.

And, yet, the context of John 1:1, showing that Jesus is the Word, also states in the Greek that the Word has always existed; it was never created. The Word is divine, that is, the Word has "all the attributes of the divine essence" (M. R. Vincent). It is a qualitative claim as to the nature of the Word.

The Jews would not want to stone him if they thought he said he was God. For that they would have just thought he was insane.

You're splitting hairs unnecessarily here. If Jesus was claiming to be divine, he would be claiming to be God, since for the Jews, there is only one who is divine.

 

[Peterlag]

You're taking a lot of Scripture out of context. Your interpretation of John 1:3, believing that "it" is legitimate, for example, is because you're ignoring the context of John 1:1-18. I gave a fair bit of that context, which you have still ignored, that shows Jesus is the Word and why the correct translation in verse 3 (and 2) is "he;" that it cannot be "it."

You have also ignored the context of John 14:17, in making your argument that the correct pronoun for "spirit" is "it."

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

First, Jesus says the Father "will give . . . another Helper." What is "another" if not one like himself? And what is a "Helper"? When we look at the Greek, parakletos, it means "comforter" or better, "advocate." Interestingly, the noun is masculine, which argues against your insistence that because "spirit" is neuter, it should be referred to as "it." But more importantly than that, an advocate can only be thought of as a person. Persons advocate for other persons. "Its" cannot advocate for anyone or anything.

Parakletos is used only 5 times in the NT. In addition to John 14:6, we have:

Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."

Joh 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"

Joh 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."
Joh 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;

1Joh 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

Notice the actions of this other Advocate: teaches; brings things to remembrance; testifies; convicts. These are actions of agency, of a person, not an "it." And Jesus says it is for their advantage that he leave and send this Advocate. How is it, then, that having an "it" would be to their advantage? Could a desk, chair, or rock do any of these things or be of an advantage when Jesus left?


And, yet, the context of John 1:1, showing that Jesus is the Word, also states in the Greek that the Word has always existed; it was never created. The Word is divine, that is, the Word has "all the attributes of the divine essence" (M. R. Vincent). It is a qualitative claim as to the nature of the Word.


You're splitting hairs unnecessarily here. If Jesus was claiming to be divine, he would be claiming to be God, since for the Jews, there is only one who is divine.

I don't like the word ignore but perhaps that's how you see it since I would not know what to say to a guy who said there's no such thing as air. Because if there was we would be able to see it. To a guy like that I would not have a lot to respond to him. Same is true with Jesus. He's not God. If a guy says he is I just don't know what else I can say to a guy like that.

 

[Randy]

I don't like the word ignore but perhaps that's how you see it since I would not know what to say to a guy who said there's no such thing as air. Because if there was we would be able to see it. To a guy like that I would not have a lot to respond to him. Same is true with Jesus. He's not God. If a guy says he is I just don't know what else I can say to a guy like that.

Jesus and the Father are ONE.
If you really opened that door you would know that.
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Never the less if you really are His disciple you belong to Him.
Jesus to the Father
“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

And All that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son.
All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’

This is truth.
The Father, Son and Spirit bear witness and they are ONE.

The Spirit of God would have the Fathers nature as its His Spirit.
The Fullness of the Deity that was pleased to dwell in Christ gives Him the Fathers nature.
Col 1:19

The one who was with the Father in the beginning and shown as a craftsman in regard to that creation did become flesh. He is before all things -Not meaning the Father

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’ ”

 

[jaybo]

I don't like the word ignore but perhaps that's how you see it since I would not know what to say to a guy who said there's no such thing as air. Because if there was we would be able to see it. To a guy like that I would not have a lot to respond to him. Same is true with Jesus. He's not God. If a guy says he is I just don't know what else I can say to a guy like that.

Are you an American? It says you live in New York, so I assume you are. I live in New Mexico; I am also an American. But ... how can that be? We live in different locations, yet we both have the same nationality. But ... that's impossible, right???

It's the same thing with Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit). They are different, yet they are the same! God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

Your denial makes as much sense as denying that, even though we live in different locations, we both have the same nationality.

 

[Free]

I don't like the word ignore but perhaps that's how you see it since I would not know what to say to a guy who said there's no such thing as air. Because if there was we would be able to see it. To a guy like that I would not have a lot to respond to him. Same is true with Jesus. He's not God. If a guy says he is I just don't know what else I can say to a guy like that.

Well, you could start by actually addressing the points and arguments being made. The thing is, this is nothing like someone saying there's no such thing as air. We have the Bible and the Bible reveals a number of things about God and about Jesus. In fact, Jesus is the central figure of the entire Bible, so there is a fair bit revealed about him. So, we must consider all the Bible says and take it all into account, and not take bits and pieces or use certain verses to override the meaning of other verses. We have a lot of context that needs to be considered, as well as the Greek behind our translations that tells us even more. There are numerous--thousands upon thousands--of scholars and theologians throughout the history of the Church that we must consult and consider what they have to say.

You came to understand things about Jesus in a certain way, yet, from what I can see, you don't seem to understand context or just how important it is. It is central to understanding the meaning of a verse or word or passage. These are things we can and should discuss, but you are ignoring all the points I am making, using Scripture, and just continue to post as though I've said nothing. I am trying to follow the example of Jesus and the Apostles, particularly Paul, who very often reasoned (disputed, tried to persuade) from the Scriptures about the Gospel, showing who Jesus was (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9).

In normal discourse, then, when one person lays out their reasons why they believe a certain thing to be true in Scripture, a person who disagrees will show why they believe it isn't the case and why they believe a different position to be the case. And back and forth until, hopefully, there is some agreement. It is to use our God-given gift of reason. However, every time I've shown why your position is not correct or most likely not correct and provided a better or fuller understanding, you ignore my response. It really seems that you just want to post your position and why you believe it's right. But when someone shows a problem with your reasoning or with the evidence you're providing or other evidence you're ignoring, then you need to address those issues if your position is to stand.

So far, your position is very weak and you don't seem to either understand or care.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus and the Father are ONE.
If you really opened that door you would know that.
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Never the less if you really are His disciple you belong to Him.
Jesus to the Father
“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

And All that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son.
All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’

This is truth.
The Father, Son and Spirit bear witness and they are ONE.

The Spirit of God would have the Fathers nature as its His Spirit.
The Fullness of the Deity that was pleased to dwell in Christ gives Him the Fathers nature.
Col 1:19

The one who was with the Father in the beginning and shown as a craftsman in regard to that creation did become flesh. He is before all things -Not meaning the Father

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’ ”

There are over 50 places where Jesus is called the son of God. Not once is he called God the son. Not once by anyone.

 

[Peterlag]

Are you an American? It says you live in New York, so I assume you are. I live in New Mexico; I am also an American. But ... how can that be? We live in different locations, yet we both have the same nationality. But ... that's impossible, right???

It's the same thing with Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit). They are different, yet they are the same! God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

Your denial makes as much sense as denying that, even though we live in different locations, we both have the same nationality.

There are over 50 places in the New Testament alone where Jesus is called the son of God. Not once is he called God the son. Not even once by anyone.

 

[Peterlag]

Well, you could start by actually addressing the points and arguments being made. The thing is, this is nothing like someone saying there's no such thing as air. We have the Bible and the Bible reveals a number of things about God and about Jesus. In fact, Jesus is the central figure of the entire Bible, so there is a fair bit revealed about him. So, we must consider all the Bible says and take it all into account, and not take bits and pieces or use certain verses to override the meaning of other verses. We have a lot of context that needs to be considered, as well as the Greek behind our translations that tells us even more. There are numerous--thousands upon thousands--of scholars and theologians throughout the history of the Church that we must consult and consider what they have to say.

You came to understand things about Jesus in a certain way, yet, from what I can see, you don't seem to understand context or just how important it is. It is central to understanding the meaning of a verse or word or passage. These are things we can and should discuss, but you are ignoring all the points I am making, using Scripture, and just continue to post as though I've said nothing. I am trying to follow the example of Jesus and the Apostles, particularly Paul, who very often reasoned (disputed, tried to persuade) from the Scriptures about the Gospel, showing who Jesus was (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9).

In normal discourse, then, when one person lays out their reasons why they believe a certain thing to be true in Scripture, a person who disagrees will show why they believe it isn't the case and why they believe a different position to be the case. And back and forth until, hopefully, there is some agreement. It is to use our God-given gift of reason. However, every time I've shown why your position is not correct or most likely not correct and provided a better or fuller understanding, you ignore my response. It really seems that you just want to post your position and why you believe it's right. But when someone shows a problem with your reasoning or with the evidence you're providing or other evidence you're ignoring, then you need to address those issues if your position is to stand.

So far, your position is very weak and you don't seem to either understand or care.

I have addressed your points and even went into great detail and you still choose not to believe. It's pagan and was started by the Catholics and trust me they never start anything that's of God. That should have been a huge red flag to any well thinking person.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus and the Father are ONE.
If you really opened that door you would know that.
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Never the less if you really are His disciple you belong to Him.
Jesus to the Father
“I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

And All that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son.
All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’

This is truth.
The Father, Son and Spirit bear witness and they are ONE.

The Spirit of God would have the Fathers nature as its His Spirit.
The Fullness of the Deity that was pleased to dwell in Christ gives Him the Fathers nature.
Col 1:19

The one who was with the Father in the beginning and shown as a craftsman in regard to that creation did become flesh. He is before all things -Not meaning the Father

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’ ”

If this verse that you quoted in Colossians 1:19 makes Jesus God. Then you are God too because Ephesians 3:19 says...
that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Colossians 1:19 ... that in him should all fulness dwell;

 

[Free]

I have addressed your points and even went into great detail and you still choose not to believe.

You haven't addressed most of my points, and they are quite a number. I'll lay it out for you:

You never responded to any points in this post (despite my pointing that out multiple times), which shows your understanding and argument of the logos to be lacking: https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-7#post-1691581

I then laid out the argument again, with some additional information, and you still haven't responded to the points I made: https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-11#post-1694119

I reposted a small part of that post, (https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-11#post-1694253) which you responded with a fallacious argument to the gender of "spirit": https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-12#post-1694349

I rebutted that fallacious argument with this: https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-12#post-1694363

Your rebuttal of that simply continued with the fallacy: https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-12#post-1694438

I then responded with this to try and show you your error in reasoning: https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-12#post-1694441

Your response didn't address any of the points I made. So, I gave further context to show you your error in reasoning: https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-12#post-1694613

And all you could come up with is a false analogy, that you "would not know what to say to a guy who said there's no such thing as air."

There is a constant in our discussion: you have continually avoided addressing points which do serious damage to your understanding of who Jesus is, to whom logos refers, and to your arguments to the gender of nouns. You haven't addressed any of those rebuttals.

It isn't that I've chosen to not believe, it's that your case is weak and I have no reason to believe what you have given thus far. Your understanding of who the logos is and who ("what," in your case) the Spirit is, is seriously lacking a proper understanding of biblical interpretation, and so you have come to wrong conclusions.

It's pagan

Proof please.

and was started by the Catholics and trust me they never start anything that's of God. That should have been a huge red flag to any well thinking person.

Trust you? Why? If you want to (fallaciously) argue that because it was started by the Catholics, it's false, then while you're at it, maybe you should throw out your Bible, since they are the ones who put the canon together. I'm sure if we dug just a little bit, we could find all sorts of "Catholic" doctrine that you believe to be true.