How to defend the trinity!

[Cooper]

The Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."
You are incorrect in your assessment!
Paul

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Mat 28:19 KJV) ???

Jesus said it.

Added.
In the name of Jesus Christ - Not εἰς eis, into, but ἐπί epi, upon. The usual form of baptism is into the name of the Father, etc. - εἰς eis. Here it does not mean to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, but it means to be baptized for him and his service; to be consecrated in this way, and by this public profession, to him and to his cause. The expression is literally upon the name of Jesus Christ: that is, as the foundation of the baptism, or as that on which its propriety rested or was based. In other words, it is with an acknowledgment of him in that act as being what his name imports the Sinner’s only Hope, his Redeemer, Lord, Justifier, King (Prof. Hackett, in loco). The name of Jesus Christ means the same as Jesus Christ himself. To be baptized to his name is to be devoted to him. The word “name” is often thus used. The profession which they were to make amounted to this: a confession of sins; a hearty purpose to turn from them; a reception of Jesus as the Messiah and as a Saviour; and a determination to become his followers and to be devoted to his service. Thus, 1Co_10:2, to be baptized unto Moses means to take him as a leader and guide. It does not follow that, in administering the ordinance of baptism, they used only the name of Jesus Christ. It is much more probable that they used the form prescribed by the Saviour himself Mat_28:19; though, as the special mark of a Christian is that he receives and honors Jesus Christ, this name is used here as implying the whole. The same thing occurs in Act_19:5.
(Barnes)

 

[Randy]

I do believe Jesus, as a man talking to other people. I also believe in the inspiration of Scripture and so I also believe what John says in John 1:1--that the Son "was God." You are pitting Scripture against Scripture, ignoring the greater context of John and the Bible, by making a much too simplistic argument to John 17:3. You're even ignoring the context of that verse:

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

Verse 5 shows two things: 1) Jesus existed prior to creation and is therefore eternal, and 2) he shared in the Father's glory despite Yahweh saying "My glory I will not give to another (Isa 48:11). And as I stated previously, verse 3 shows that eternal life is based on knowing both the Father and the Son.

The bigger point, perhaps, is just how Jesus relates to and speaks of the Father for the understanding of his listeners. His only option is to support monotheism. His statement that the Father is the only true God is in no way a denial of his own deity.

Your only options here are either Jesus is a lesser, false god, or there are two Gods. Both of those contradict Scripture.


And, yet, you continue to ignore the argument I have given regarding your use of that verse. If "one God, the Father" excludes Christ from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. Yet you post scripture stating that the Father is Lord as well. Additionally, if "from whom all things came" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Father, then "through whom all things came" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Son. Your beliefs are contradictory on both counts.


We will never die either, so does that make us God? That is not what makes Jesus God. It is that he has always existed.


According to your beliefs he most certainly isn't all the Father is.


Then he cannot be all that the Father is.

It really is amazing that you cannot even see how contradictory and poor your arguments are. But that is usually what happens when one denies the truth of a matter for long enough.

Your free to believe as you do.
But Jesus can be all that the Father is for the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. It is however the Fathers Deity.


Jesus was speaking as He did throughout His words in the NT. "Truth" By the way no mention of the Spirit. The Father alone.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

And the Jesus in Heaven and earth states to the one on the throne - His God and Father

And Paul clearly was making a distinction between His use of God and Lord that's not captured in orthodox trinity statements.

Just as the Apostles creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
.....

 

[pierac]

The Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."

You are incorrect in your assessment!
Paul

Really... ? Then show me a baptism in the New Testament using this formula... "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" .

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:48 So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,

Your following the Traditions of Men... Time to follow scripture...
Paul

 

[pierac]

Why can't the Almighty have multiple attributes?

I am sure you have a few yourself while being One person.
.

Let's let Jesus teach you WHY....

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that we could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Paul

 

[pierac]

It does nothing of the sort.


So far, so good. We must also remember verses such as John 3:18, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (see also John 1:12 and 20:31).


I cannot find that definition anywhere. It means, according to Thayer's:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

Nothing close to "unite together." I think you have confused "baptize" with "in," which, according to M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, is correctly understood as "into". This "has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose . . . 2. Into, denoting union or communion with."


Clearly, with the correct definitions I provided, we cannot paraphrase that way.


Here is what M. R. Vincent says:

"In Act_2:38, however, Peter says, “Be baptized upon (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ; and in Act_10:48, he commands Cornelius and his friends to be baptized in (ἐν) the name of the Lord. To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the ground of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter."

What he is saying is that there is no essential difference between the full Trinitarian "formula" and that of Jesus's name only.


If Matt 28:19 was not a part of the original text, then we must ask: does it contradict Scripture as a whole? And we can easily see that, no, it does not. Numerous times throughout the NT the Holy Spirit is mentioned alongside the Father and the Son, which only makes sense if the Spirit is another person, as Jesus strongly implied.

 

[pierac]

And, yet, we must consider context (all ESV):

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

Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus was Thomas's God. He was also worshiped by the disciples on more than one occasion--Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52. Others worshiped him--Matt 2:11; John 9:38; Heb 1:6.

There are numerous passages which either explicitly or implicitly state that Jesus is God, which we have addressed before. And if Jesus is God, as the Bible states, then he is the eternal Son, eternally begotten, coequal with the Father and true God.

Part 1

I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?

It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement"
(Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.

There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14. who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God.
Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Jesus is not our Judge, but our savior!

Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."


Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).

According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:
Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse: "Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification." Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

see part 2..
Paul

 

[pierac]

Part 2...

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!

1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--

What does scripture teach you about... What was from the beginning?

Pay attention as we need to get a little deeper comparing both John 1:1 with 1 John 1:1

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word." 1 John 1:1 – "What was from the beginning, what we have heard."

Notice that in John what is from the beginning is the word, and in 1 John what is from the beginning is something that they heard (a message) .

Look closely...

1 John 2:7 - "Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard."

In 1 John 1:1 what was from the beginning is something that they heard, here in 1 John 2:7 the old commandment is what they have had from the beginning, (sound familiar?) and the old commandment is the "WORD" that they what? Heard! The same as in 1 John 1:1.

So, What commandment is John speaking about?

John is speaking about what Jesus called the greatest commandment, ( Mark 12:29-30 ) the commandment of love which God gave the Hebrews from the beginning. The message of love that the proclamation of the Kingdom of God brings with it.

How do we know for sure that this is the message and/or the commandment that they heard from the beginning? Because John tells you so in 1 John 3:11 and 1 John 3:23:

"For this is the message you have HEARD from the BEGINNING: we should love one another."

"And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another."

Loving one another is how the world will know that we are followers of God’s Christ.

John 13:30 – "This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

According to Paul (Romans 13:9), the law of love is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and it is the Law in the coming Kingdom of God which the Messiah has come to proclaim. These are Jesus’ own words.

John is talking about the message or Logos (known by you as “word”!)

By making John 1 a Trinity support verse, you lose so much truth!
Paul

 

[Cooper]

Let's let Jesus teach you WHY....

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories. What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23). Has it ever dawned on you as you sit in church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that we could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!

Paul

We are made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Free]

Your free to believe as you do.
But Jesus can be all that the Father is for the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. It is however the Fathers Deity.

If Jesus, as the Son, didn't exist for eternity past, then he can never be all that the Father is. However, Phil 2 clears things up.

Jesus was speaking as He did throughout His words in the NT. "Truth" By the way no mention of the Spirit. The Father alone.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

And the Jesus in Heaven and earth states to the one on the throne - His God and Father

And? You do realize you are undermining the authority of Scripture by not allowing the context of the rest of the Bible, yes?

And Paul clearly was making a distinction between His use of God and Lord that's not captured in orthodox trinity statements.

Not at all, but that is what one can come to believe when ignoring context. Paul's understanding of the deity of Christ is consistent.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Notice that Paul connects Joel 2:32a--"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved"--with confessing that Jesus is Lord. Of course, we all know that "LORD" in the OT is put in place of YHWH. Paul is essentially saying that one must confess that Jesus is God. This is entirely consistent with 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2: 6-8, Col 1:15-17, Titus 2:13 and 3:6 (cf. 1:4, 2:10, and 3:4).

Just as the Apostles creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
.....

As do I and all Trinitarians. A Son is the same as his Father; like begets like.

 

[Free]

Part 1

I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?

It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement"
(Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”

In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.

There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"

Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14. who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God.
Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!

Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

Jesus is not our Judge, but our savior!

Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."


Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).

According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:
Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse: "Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification." Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

see part 2..
Paul

All in all, you start by arguing to context but then ignore the context of the rest of John's prologue. You even argue that context determines the gender of a noun, but then argue to completely different contexts from John's prologue to support your understanding of John 1:1-3. So, while other contexts will determine the interpretation specific for that context, John's prologue is an entirely different context. It is simply an exegetical fallacy to conclude that because Jesus and the word of God are used separately in one context that Jesus cannot be the Word of God in John's context.

This becomes more apparent when we look at Revelation 19:3, which John wrote: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God."

It is also worth mentioning the rest of the context of John's prologue:

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.
Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
Joh 1:16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Clearly, John thinks that the Son, the Incarnate Word, is deity.

 

[Free]

Part 2...

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!

1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us--

What does scripture teach you about... What was from the beginning?

Pay attention as we need to get a little deeper comparing both John 1:1 with 1 John 1:1

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word." 1 John 1:1 – "What was from the beginning, what we have heard."

Notice that in John what is from the beginning is the word, and in 1 John what is from the beginning is something that they heard (a message) .

Look closely...

1 John 2:7 - "Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard."

In 1 John 1:1 what was from the beginning is something that they heard, here in 1 John 2:7 the old commandment is what they have had from the beginning, (sound familiar?) and the old commandment is the "WORD" that they what? Heard! The same as in 1 John 1:1.

So, What commandment is John speaking about?

John is speaking about what Jesus called the greatest commandment, ( Mark 12:29-30 ) the commandment of love which God gave the Hebrews from the beginning. The message of love that the proclamation of the Kingdom of God brings with it.

How do we know for sure that this is the message and/or the commandment that they heard from the beginning? Because John tells you so in 1 John 3:11 and 1 John 3:23:

"For this is the message you have HEARD from the BEGINNING: we should love one another."

"And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another."

Loving one another is how the world will know that we are followers of God’s Christ.

John 13:30 – "This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

According to Paul (Romans 13:9), the law of love is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and it is the Law in the coming Kingdom of God which the Messiah has come to proclaim. These are Jesus’ own words.

John is talking about the message or Logos (known by you as “word”!)

Again, you are ignoring context, and it seems purposely this time. Why do you only quote the first part of 1 John 1 and not the whole verse and subsequent verses? Here it is:

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

You argue that it was a message, something that they heard, yet, John states it was also something they saw and touched with their hands. But, more than that, it ignores the Greek use of en, translated as "was." This is precisely what John uses in John 1:1, where it means that the Word already existed when the beginning began. That is, the Word was eternal. Here, it means that "that which was from the beginning," was already in existence at the beginning.

Then we have to consider "concerning the word of life," or, more correctly as M. R. Vincent states, "the word of the life." There is an obvious connection to John 1:4--"In him was life, and the life was the light of men." It makes it rather difficult to believe that 1 John 1:1 is simply about a message.

By making John 1 a Trinity support verse, you lose so much truth!
Paul

On the contrary, one gains essential truth. The whole point of John's prologue is to introduce us to the person of Christ so that one may find salvation (John 20:31). Getting John 1:1-18 is absolutely essential for understanding the rest of his gospel.

 

[Randy]

If Jesus, as the Son, didn't exist for eternity past, then he can never be all that the Father is. However, Phil 2 clears things up.


And? You do realize you are undermining the authority of Scripture by not allowing the context of the rest of the Bible, yes?


Not at all, but that is what one can come to believe when ignoring context. Paul's understanding of the deity of Christ is consistent.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Notice that Paul connects Joel 2:32a--"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved"--with confessing that Jesus is Lord. Of course, we all know that "LORD" in the OT is put in place of YHWH. Paul is essentially saying that one must confess that Jesus is God. This is entirely consistent with 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2: 6-8, Col 1:15-17, Titus 2:13 and 3:6 (cf. 1:4, 2:10, and 3:4).


As do I and all Trinitarians. A Son is the same as his Father; like begets like.

Jesus is my Lord.
The Father is my God.
My God doesn't have a God or Father.
My Lord has a God and Father.
There is a difference shown.

Like begets Like?
Which is it a Son who was begotten as in a beginning
Or a Son who has no beginning and wasn't begotten?

 

[Randy]

If Jesus, as the Son, didn't exist for eternity past, then he can never be all that the Father is. However, Phil 2 clears things up.


And? You do realize you are undermining the authority of Scripture by not allowing the context of the rest of the Bible, yes?


Not at all, but that is what one can come to believe when ignoring context. Paul's understanding of the deity of Christ is consistent.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Notice that Paul connects Joel 2:32a--"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved"--with confessing that Jesus is Lord. Of course, we all know that "LORD" in the OT is put in place of YHWH. Paul is essentially saying that one must confess that Jesus is God. This is entirely consistent with 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2: 6-8, Col 1:15-17, Titus 2:13 and 3:6 (cf. 1:4, 2:10, and 3:4).


As do I and all Trinitarians. A Son is the same as his Father; like begets like.

Paul is the one who wrote this and Jesus is not that fullness. It was pleased to dwell in Him. (God in Him)
Col 1:19 - from the will of another at a point in time before the world began as opposed to a Jesus who always was

I have already presented how Jesus taught oneness 2 or 3 times in this thread and its not the oneness you state. Do I need to post it again?

In regard to the Spirit. I read Spirit of God. I read the Father calling that Spirit His own as in "My Spirit" I did not find God the Spirit. Jesus does speak of that Spirit as another but the Father does not.
I also note One God the Father; One Lord Jesus Christ -No mention of the Spirit
To Him who sits on the Throne and to the Lamb - No mention of the Spirit
The kingdom of the world will become the Kingdom of God and His Christ-No mention of the Spirit
Jesus in regard to the One on the throne - His God and Father - No mention of the Spirit
Jesus in regard Father is the only true God -No mention of the Spirit

So I see the Spirit of God as the Spirit of my heavenly Father not as a distinct person from the Father
The Fathers Spirit would have the Fathers nature -Divine, Eternal, Holy, Truth

That Spirit per Jesus doesn't not speak on His own but only what He hears
As in those who listen and learn from the Father come to Him -They will all be taught by God

 

[Free]

Jesus is my Lord.
The Father is my God.
My God doesn't have a God or Father.
My Lord has a God and Father.
There is a difference shown.

As a man, yes, but even Thomas recognized Jesus as his Lord and his God. The rest of the disciples did as well, seen in their worship of Jesus on several occasions.

Like begets Like?
Which is it a Son who was begotten as in a beginning
Or a Son who has no beginning and wasn't begotten?

Both. He is eternally begotten, True God from True God. If the Father has eternal preexistence and begets the Son, the Son is of the same nature as the Father, and therefore also has always existed. It cannot be otherwise.

 

[Randy]

As a man, yes, but even Thomas recognized Jesus as his Lord and his God. The rest of the disciples did as well, seen in their worship of Jesus on several occasions.


Both. He is eternally begotten, True God from True God. If the Father has eternal preexistence and begets the Son, the Son is of the same nature as the Father, and therefore also has always existed. It cannot be otherwise.

The Jesus in heaven calls the one on the throne His God and Father. So Jesus just on earth theory fails because it's stated as "truth" And again what does Jesus being on earth have to do with leaving out as you believe God the Spirit?
In regard to the Father alone =>The only true God.
Why wouldn't we already belong to Jesus?
Jesus to the Father=>They were yours you gave them to me.
Why is there a need to command angels to worship their God?
When God brings the firstborn into the world He commands all His angels to bow to Him.
Why is there a need to give a true God authority?
All authority in heaven and earth have been given to me.


Col 1:19 doesn't show eternally begotten as if that makes any sense. It took place and why wouldn't Jesus already be that fullness? As you state true God which contradicts Jesus's statement in regard to the Father alone.
It does show all the fullness of God being gifted to dwell in Him(God in Him) from the will of another who defined His being.

Paul did not write Jesus was true God with no beginning.
He wrote He was the firstborn of all creation
That the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him
that He was the image of the invisible God
That all things were made through Him and for Him
That God was pleased through Him to reconcile all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peacethrough his blood, shed on the cross.

While God has granted Jesus to have life in Himself and that through Him and in Him we live it is for the Father that we live.
As is stated Jesus has made us a kingdom to serve His God and Father.-No mention of the Spirit
To worship the Father in Spirit and truth -No mention of worship the Spirit.

 

[pierac]

If Jesus, as the Son, didn't exist for eternity past, then he can never be all that the Father is. However, Phil 2 clears things up.


And? You do realize you are undermining the authority of Scripture by not allowing the context of the rest of the Bible, yes?


Not at all, but that is what one can come to believe when ignoring context. Paul's understanding of the deity of Christ is consistent.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Notice that Paul connects Joel 2:32a--"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved"--with confessing that Jesus is Lord. Of course, we all know that "LORD" in the OT is put in place of YHWH. Paul is essentially saying that one must confess that Jesus is God. This is entirely consistent with 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2: 6-8, Col 1:15-17, Titus 2:13 and 3:6 (cf. 1:4, 2:10, and 3:4).


As do I and all Trinitarians. A Son is the same as his Father; like begets like.

I'm sorry, but do you even know what your told to believe??? By using Phil 2 to clears things up tells me you don't have a clue!

Emptied Himself
Now to the second phrase in Philippians 2 that causes you difficulty. It is the one that says Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (v. 6-7). It is unfortunate that the Old King James version of the Bible translated this verse completely wrong. It reads that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" and gives the impression that as the preexistent God, Jesus did not think there was anything wrong in being considered equal with God.

It ought to be clear by now that this is the exact opposite of what is meant. The whole context of the passage is about being humble, putting God's will and glory first, and serving others’ interest above one's own interest. Although he was in "the form of God" Jesus did not reckon his God-given status as something to be exploited.

This meaning contrast well with the conduct of Adam who unfortunately did consider equality with God anything to be grasped at. Adam wanted to be like God as Genesis 3:5 teaches. Adam tried to grasp at equality with God. But Jesus would not usurp God's authority for selfish advantage. He said, "I came to serve" (Matt. 20:28), not to snatch! At his arrest in the garden, he said, "Do you not think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than 12 legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). As the Messiah, God's appointed King, he had every right to call for divine protection. He "emptied himself" of all such Messianic privileges.

Therefore, it can be categorically stated that Philippians 2: 5-11 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ being God in a preexistence state. The importance is really very simple and very practical: how are Christians to conduct themselves in this world? Not by imitating the man Adam who forfeited everything by a grab for power and glory, but by imitating Jesus the Messiah (v.5) who through humility and obedience to God gained it all and more. After all, if Jesus was already God, then verses 9 to 11 are nonsensical. There is no "Therefore also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." If he was already God, he had this before his birth! No. It is clear that God has given him a new position, a new name (authority), and a new rank that he did not previously possess.

The Greek is very clear here: dio kai means (as in Luke 1:35) "for this reason precisely." Why has God exalted Jesus to His right hand? "Therefore, God has highly exalted him and given him the name above every other name because he is back where he was before as God"? Not at all! He is given the status as a reward for the precise reason that he humbled himself and died. His exalted status is a reward. If we follow the last Adam's pattern, we too will be exalted by God when Christ returns. It is evident, then, that "this hymn does not contained what numerous interpreters seek and find in it: an independent statement about preexistence or even a Christology preexistence… No preexistence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Philippians 2.

This is the creed of ALL Orthodox Christian Beliefs! All of them!

DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451 AD)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.


So pay close attention.... The Kenotic Doctrine claims that Jesus emptied himself of his deity. Well, you can simply read in the Chalcedon Creed that it defines Jesus’ nature as fully God and fully man at all times, without division, without separation. You cannot say that you believe in the Trinity and use this excuse. If you subscribe to the Kenotic Doctrine, then you have already rejected the Trinity. You cannot be both.

Try harder... You just contradicted your own beliefs
Paul

 

[pierac]

Look, Let's make it easy... I'm going to give you a formal description of who Jesus was... in Biblical times... It's simple...

"Jesus, was a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you should know !"

It's not that hard...
Paul

 

[pierac]

Again, you are ignoring context, and it seems purposely this time. Why do you only quote the first part of 1 John 1 and not the whole verse and subsequent verses? Here it is:

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

You argue that it was a message, something that they heard, yet, John states it was also something they saw and touched with their hands. But, more than that, it ignores the Greek use of en, translated as "was." This is precisely what John uses in John 1:1, where it means that the Word already existed when the beginning began. That is, the Word was eternal. Here, it means that "that which was from the beginning," was already in existence at the beginning.

Then we have to consider "concerning the word of life," or, more correctly as M. R. Vincent states, "the word of the life." There is an obvious connection to John 1:4--"In him was life, and the life was the light of men." It makes it rather difficult to believe that 1 John 1:1 is simply about a message.


On the contrary, one gains essential truth. The whole point of John's prologue is to introduce us to the person of Christ so that one may find salvation (John 20:31). Getting John 1:1-18 is absolutely essential for understanding the rest of his gospel.

You failed to pay attention...

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God in John 1 are not the same thing.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!

So what's you point about John 1 now???
Paul

 

[pierac]

As a man, yes, but even Thomas recognized Jesus as his Lord and his God. The rest of the disciples did as well, seen in their worship of Jesus on several occasions.


Both. He is eternally begotten, True God from True God. If the Father has eternal preexistence and begets the Son, the Son is of the same nature as the Father, and therefore also has always existed. It cannot be otherwise.

My Lord and my God.

There you go, an Apostle refers to Jesus as God. When you look at some verses in the Old and New Testament you have to remember to look at them with a Hebrew or Greek mind of that period, and not a 20th century mind. Some language can mean something to us that it did not mean back then. For example, if an Englishman says, "I am mad about my flat" he means that he is exited about his apartment. To an American, that same phrase means that he is angry about his flat tire. The word "God" for example, means to us in the 20th century "The Almighty God." To a Jew it did not necessarily mean "Almighty God." In Psalms 82: 1 & 6 God refers to earthly rulers as gods. This is the same passage that Jesus quotes to the Jews when they accuse him of saying that he is God. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says to them; "If it is okay to call men gods, why is it blasphemous for me to say that I am the Son of God"(John 10: 33 - 38). Notice how when Jesus is accused of being God, he quickly corrects them that he is not God, but the Son of God. In 2 Corinthians 4: 4 Satan is also called the "god of this age." Does that mean that he is God Almighty? Of course not!

John even tells us just 3 verses later why he wrote about Thomas story… In John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. If Thomas was really calling Jesus GOD almighty then John just contradicted why he wrote his writings.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church points out what an early Christian father, Origen (185-254 AD) says about the word "God." "The Son is theos (God), but only the Father is autotheos" (absolute God, God in himself).

This is the reason there is an Almighty God or a Most High God, in order to differentiate the only true God from the others. Another fact to consider when approaching this verse is to understand whom John believes God and Jesus to be.

John wrote his gospel to testify that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son. Let us take a look again at what John believes in order to not take one verse and unjustly imply a certain belief on John.

John 17:3

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Revelation 1:6

"Who (Jesus) has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father"

John 20:17

"But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’"

Remember that John’s whole purpose for writing his Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, not God.

"But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20: 31).

We must keep John's reason for writing his gospel fresh in our minds as we try to understand this verse. In his gospel, John distinguishes completely between the only true God and Jesus Christ To imply that John believed in a three in one God would be to do a terrible injustice to John.

So what does Thomas mean? To us in the modern world it might at first seem odd, but when you put yourself in Thomas’s place as a Jew in Jesus’ day, it will make all the sense in the world.

The Catholic New American Bible defines this usage of the word god:

"The king, in courtly language is called god, representing God to the people."

Aspects of Monotheism states: "god" is an allegorical equivalent for "king."

This is the definition of the Messiah. The Messiah is the king of Israel who represents God to the people (John 1:49). Thomas was just stating that fact. When he saw Jesus resurrected, it proved to him that He was indeed the Messiah. Thomas’ statement is the equivalent of saying, My Lord and my king. This is not just my opinion; it is easily verified in the Old Testament. Remember, God = king = Messiah.

This kind of language was common in those days. Let’s look at a similar verse.

1 Samuel 24:9 states:

"David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul, "My lord and my king."

My lord and my God = My lord and my king.

This verse mean the same thing. Thomas is addressing the king of Israel in exactly the same way that David did. You just have to speak like a first century Jew.

Luke 2:11 states:

"A savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord."

Acts 2:36 states:

"God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Lord and Messiah = Lord and king = Lord and God.

There is for me one great proof that Thomas did not mean Jesus is Almighty God when he called Jesus God. When Thomas called Jesus "My lord and my God " all the Apostles were in the room. If this statement is true, then it is logical to assume that from now on, all the Apostles know that Jesus is really God. So from that point onward Jesus should be addressed as God. But as you can see in all the writings of the New Testament, none of the Apostles ever refer to Jesus as Almighty God or YHWH . Not once in the entire New Testament do they ever pray to Jesus. They make clear distinctions between the two. They in fact write about the God of Jesus Christ (John 20:17). Remember, "No one has ever seen God" (1 John 4: 12). Same author.

You never seem to quote 1 John 4:12 in relation to Jesus?
Why is that? Paul

 

[pierac]

How many Gods do you think we have???

TWO GODS?

From the start of Judaism and later Christianity, the most famous aspect and unique characteristic of the two religions is the fact that they were, and still are monotheistic. Christianity is really the continuation of Judaism. Both religions believe in one, and only one unbegotten God, creator of the universe. There are no other gods in these two faiths.​

Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the LORD... there is no God but me."

Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD and there is no other, there is no God besides me."

Isaiah 45:6 - "Men may know that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, there is no other."

No one will contest that to a Jew or a Christian, there is only one God. Anything else would simply be considered polytheism. The majority of Christianity believes in one God, but a God that is plural in makeup. There are three persons that constitute this one God. They are three, but yet, they are still all the one God. There is: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

In this post we will be concerned primarily with Trinitarian Christianity’s view of God. Specifically, God the Son.

We all know that God the Son has a Father (God the Father). But the question that must be asked and answered is: can God the Son have a God? Every pastor that I have ever asked this question to has always said "Of course not!" But is that the answer given in Scripture? No, on the contrary. As you will see, the prophesied Messiah in the Old Testament is said to have a God. Then you will see that Jesus the Messiah fulfills those prophesies because he most definitely has a God. If you come to the conclusion that Jesus has a God, then it might be time to rethink and research the Doctrine of the Trinity. Because if God the Son has a God, then there are TWO GODS!

To make this as simple as possible, I am not going to list the huge amount of Scriptures which have God (not "Father") and Jesus in the same sentence, or Scriptures that have God speaking to Jesus, or Jesus speaking to God. We will only be concerned with Scriptures that prove that Jesus has a God.

OLD TESTAMENT MESSIANIC PROPHESIES

Psalm 89:26-28 - "He (the Messiah) shall say of me. "You are my father, my God, my rock, my savior". And I will make him the firstborn."

Micah 5:3-4 - "He (the Messiah) shall stand firm and shepherd his flock by the strength of the LORD, in the Majestic name of the LORD, his God."

Psalm 22:10-11 - "To you I was committed at birth. From my mother’s womb you are my God."

NEW TESTAMENT​

Jesus Speaking:

John 20:17 - "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Matthew 27:46 - "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Revelation 3:12 - "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God."

Revelation 3:2 - "for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God."

Paul:

Ephesians 1:3 - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 1:17 - "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father..."

2 Corinthians 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Corinthians 11:31 - "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ knows, He who is blessed forever, that I do not lie."

Romans 15:6 - "that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Peter:

1 Peter 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

John:
Revelation 1:6 - "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."

When one reads the preceding verses, there is one thing that is a fact. That Jesus the Christ has a God. Jesus speaks of his God, Peter Paul and John mention the God of Jesus Christ. Are they all mistaken? Are we to believe that all these verses are misprints? Are we to suppose that theologians several centuries after Christ knew more about Jesus than Jesus and his Apostles? There is no way around it.

The New American Bible (a Roman Catholic Bible) in a section discussing biblical revelation says,

"It is the very same God who reveals Himself in so many richly divergent ways on every page of the Scriptures. The God of Abraham and Moses and David is the God of Jesus of Nazareth."

You cannot be God... and then claim to have one!!!
Do the Biblical Math!

Why is this Important??? Jesus tells you why...very clearly ...

Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Could belief in the Trinity... according to Jesus in John 17:3 ... NOT be a belief in the only true God? thus... No eternal life???

Worth thinking about... before you support nonbiblical doctrine/traditions of men!

Paul