James G, can you explain this post?

[shad]

.
Shad

““I dont believe Jesus is God like God the Father. I am not a trinitarian remember?â€â€

Yes, I understand that. What I was asking was how you understand John 1:1-18 from your own perspective.

JamesG

I think there is some interpretation problem in John 1-1 because it is not contextual with the verses I quoted.

 

[JamesG]

.
Shad

Ah, you don’t understand it. Understandable. And commendable that you would admit that. Even the anti-Trinitarian Jehovah’s Witnesses resorted to changing John 1:1 to read “and the Word was a god†instead of the usual translation of “and the Word was Godâ€, such as found in the NIV.

Originally, of course, I was a died in the wool Trinitarian and understood it in the same way that they did. The Word of God is God, the same in essence as God. And the Word is Jesus.

But eventually, I began to question the Trinitarian understanding. I had a lot of concerns about the interpretations of certain proof texts used by the Trinitarians such as Isaiah 9:6 and John 10:30.

The result is that I began to see that the Word in John 1:1 and following referred to a function rather than essence. If it is taken in that sense, then if God is referring to the Father, they would be the same in the sense of being the Word together as a function. Jesus is still under the Father as a representative. But the Word would be the same because it comes from one source, the Father. With this understanding, the translation of John 1:1 doesn’t have to be changed one iota. This fits well with the constant claim of Jesus that everything that he said was from the Father and not from himself alone. And what is really interesting is that this understanding fits equally well whether one believes that Jesus is the same in essence as the Father or not.

What do you think of this understanding?

JamesG

 

[shad]

So are you saying that Jesus is God too even though God the Father says God is one?

 

[JamesG]

.
Shad

Common buddy, work with me here. Try to keep your anti-Trinitarianism to a minimum. What did I say at the end? This understanding works equally well whether one believes that Jesus is God or not. Read it again with an unbiased mind. See what I actually said. You will see that it is totally agrees with your perspective. Then try that response again.

JamesG

 

[Mysteryman]

.
Shad

Common buddy, work with me here. Try to keep your anti-Trinitarianism to a minimum. What did I say at the end? This understanding works equally well whether one believes that Jesus is God or not. Read it again with an unbiased mind. See what I actually said. You will see that it is totally agrees with your perspective. Then try that response again.

JamesG

Here again we see a double minded statement. There seems to be many poping up on this board recently.

Also James, your comment is nothing short of mind control. You seem to be asking another poster to agree with you on a double minded comment that you just made.

Your statement above, that "this works well whether one believes that Jesus is God or not, is totally false !

Repeat after me James ---- I will no longer believe as James does, but only as MM does. Repeat this as many times as it takes, in order for you to believe just as MM does. What a joke !

Both can not be right, either one is eating at the table of the Lord, or the table of devils. You can not claim both to be righteous in their believing. This is unsound reasoning !

 

[shad]

.
Shad

Common buddy, work with me here. Try to keep your anti-Trinitarianism to a minimum. What did I say at the end? This understanding works equally well whether one believes that Jesus is God or not. Read it again with an unbiased mind. See what I actually said. You will see that it is totally agrees with your perspective. Then try that response again.

JamesG

What is your point? Are you saying that Jesus is God just like the trinitarians say? My question is simple. You did not say yes or no.

thanks.

 

[dadof10]

.
Even the term Trinity was created during those 4th century councils. This is four centuries after the era of the New Testament writers. Did the New Testament writers believe in the Trinity, and which form did it take if they did? In Christianity, it all depends on who you ask.

Let's ask the ECF's

Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).



Theophilus of Antioch

"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).



Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).



Origen

"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" (ibid.).

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).



Hippolytus

"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).



Novatian

"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).



Pope Dionysius

"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is b.asphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1–2).

"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" (ibid., 3).



Gregory the Wonderworker

"There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

As you can see, the term "Trinity" was used and the CONCEPT CLEARLY EXPLAINED by the early Church years before the "Constantine-allowed-pagan-practices-into-the-pure-church" year 325.

At the very least, it seems to me that if the Doctrine of the Trinity was so all-fired important, then God would have made sure that the doctrine was clearly explained with the proper terminology included in the writings of the 1st century, the New Testament writings. That not being the case, in Christianity, the practice of interpretation has been the practice of choice to understand what the Biblical writers have said relating to the nature of God. The result has been very interesting. If you’re into that sort of thing.

Don't you hold some kind of multi-inity, which includes seven "spirits" within the Godhead along with Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Do you expect the same CLEAR teaching of this doctrine within Scripture as you do for the doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[watchman F]

`
What is your point? Are you saying that Jesus is God just like the trinitarians say? My question is simple. You did not say yes or no.

thanks.

Wow shad!!!!. you better be careful. you attack everone who does not deny the deity of Christ whether they are trinity, oneness or something else. You i feel are on dangerous ground.

 

[JamesG]

.

Mysteryman & Shad

What the $%^& is your problem? If you can’t understand what I say, then why do you bother to respond? I already went through that crap with someone else on this forum. I’m not about to waste my time and go through it again.

JamesG

 

[JamesG]

.
Dadof10

Thanks for the references. I will consider them. But be aware that you are reading them in the light of your own perspective and my perspective is not the same as your own. So don’t be surprised if I see in them things that you do not.

JamesG

 

[shad]

.

Mysteryman & Shad

What the $%^& is your problem? If you can’t understand what I say, then why do you bother to respond? I already went through that crap with someone else on this forum. I’m not about to waste my time and go through it again.

JamesG

James,

I really dont understand what you are getting at. I cannot read your mind. If you are not willing to make your point clear then we cannot continue.

take care.

 

[Vic C.]

.

Mysteryman & Shad

What the $%^& is your problem? If you can’t understand what I say, then why do you bother to respond? I already went through that crap with someone else on this forum. I’m not about to waste my time and go through it again.

JamesG

Whoa! I am not going to issue a warning for this, but please note that the TOS states that no wild cards be used to substitute a cuss word or to circumvent the site's word censor.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Vic C.]

`
What is your point? Are you saying that Jesus is God just like the trinitarians say? My question is simple. You did not say yes or no.

thanks.

Wow shad!!!!. you better be careful. you attack everone who does not deny the deity of Christ whether they are trinity, oneness or something else. You i feel are on dangerous ground.

This IS the last time I want to see anyone doing the above! The site's TOS and statement of faith is clear and those who continue to push the envelope will be licking the glue on said envelope somewhere else!

 

[JamesG]

.
Vic C

I think you know why I said what I did. I am not stupid and I try to articulate everything that I say clearly. It is very frustrating when effort is spent composing a post to people who can not or will not understand what is clearly said. Disagreement is one thing. Inability to understand, especially when it appears to be purposeful, is another. And after one experience here already, I am not going through it again. It isn’t worth it. I have better things to do with my life than to talk to people who apparently don’t speak the same language that I do. And I certainly don’t have time to learn theirs.

Jasoncran sometimes does not articulate himself too well, as if he is in a hurry. He does seem to be an active man. Yet I have very rarely not been able to make out what he is saying or misunderstood what he is saying. We speak the same language. And I’m not some super intelligence. I’m just an average bloke who managed to get a little more than just a high school education.

My brother Spock was born and raised on Vulcan. I was born and raised on earth. (smiley face) I have a bad temper when it goes off. And, unfortuanately, I have the ability and the strength to do damage when it does. Fortunately, it doesn’t go off nearly as often as it used to. And fortunately this is just a forum. That post to these two individuals was a quickie post. Apparently it is a good thing that it was quick. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t be here to say…

I apologize. I will attempt to keep that rule in mind. And I will attempt to be more circumspect in the future so as not to get into bad situations. “Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." †(1Corinthians 15:33 NIV)

JamesG

 

[jasoncran]

thank god grammar isnt a requirement here.

when i was in college it was better. as they say use it or lose it.

 

[watchman F]

[quote="watchman F":2p88vt6d]

`
What is your point? Are you saying that Jesus is God just like the trinitarians say? My question is simple. You did not say yes or no.

thanks.

Wow shad!!!!. you better be careful. you attack everone who does not deny the deity of Christ whether they are trinity, oneness or something else. You i feel are on dangerous ground.

This IS the last time I want to see anyone doing the above! The site's TOS and statement of faith is clear and those who continue to push the envelope will be licking the glue on said envelope somewhere else! [/quote:2p88vt6d]What do you mean. Should we not warn those who are in trouble of going too far to return. Isn't Christ-like to warn them?

 

[Rick W]

Should we not warn those who are in trouble of going too far to return. Isn't Christ-like to warn them?

I've gotten that same argument from a member of just about every belief system we've seen on this board one time or another. No matter who it is they are right.
If you don't believe me just ask them. ;)
It might be best to shy away from that argument. What is "Christ-like" differs from religion to religion, person to person or belief to belief.

 

[dadof10]

.
Dadof10

Thanks for the references. I will consider them. But be aware that you are reading them in the light of your own perspective and my perspective is not the same as your own. So don’t be surprised if I see in them things that you do not.

JamesG

That's fine. We can move from Scripture interpretation to ECF interpretation. I'm just pointing out that the word "Trinity" was used and the doctrine taught WAY before 325 AD.

 

[JamesG]

.
dadof10

That post was a big mistake. I dumped what you gave me. I don't need to talk to people or consider what they say, who are going to reinterpret what I say.

JamesG

 

[dadof10]

.
dadof10

That post was a big mistake.

Which post? The one I commented on?

I dumped what you gave me. I don't need to talk to people or consider what they say, who are going to reinterpret what I say.

I didn't "reinterpret" anything. We all interpret Scripture, your last post said "So don’t be surprised if I see in them things that you do not". Doesn't this sentence mean that you will interpret the ECF's words differently than I do because of my alleged "reading them in the light of your own perspective and my perspective is not the same as your own"?