My take on Trinity

[GodsGrace]

To me the word Godhead refers to God. Some translations just refer to Godhead as the Deity. I think it's a way of saying the fullness of God lives in Jesus.

However, I don't see it as a nod to Trinitarianism since that should be something unique to Jesus, but it can also apply to other people as well. Ephesians 3:19 for example "...of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God."

Thanks Runningman.
Happy posting!

 

[Free]

..................................
I'd be surprised if any go there and actually read/study what it truly reveals about John's clear, consistent usage and John 1:1c. I believe you and I discussed John 1:1c a while back. But, like everyone else, you didn't actually read it all or you didn't like what it factually proved.

Yes, it takes too much effort for the majority to study the many steps to prove that John did not intend "God" at John 1:1c.

It does take a lot of effort. I've been debating and studying this topic for over 20 years. Nothing in your blogs factually proves that 1:1c should read "a god." First, that translation is to be rejected outright purely on the basis that God himself says there is no other god and there never will be. So, the larger context of the Bible precludes such a translation. The idea of lesser gods not only falls under that, but is also Gnostic in origin.

Second, it is to be rejected based also on the first clause of 1:1. It shows that when the beginning began, when the creation of time and space started, the Word was already in existence. That can only mean one thing--the Word existed prior to creation of all time and space, and so has timeless existence. Being that timeless existence belongs to God alone, we can logically conclude that the Word is God in nature. This is affirmed by Jesus's own words in John 17:5--that he shared the glory of the Father before the world existed (before creation).

Third, the second clause states that the Word was in intimate union and communion with God.

Since John could not have put the article in before theos, as that would then equate the Word and God and promote modalism, he had to leave it out. But what does that show us? It shows us that he is reaffirming what he has just stated--that the Word is God in nature. That is the only possible meaning when we take all of Scripture into account, as we must.

Whether John 1:1c says "God" or "in nature God," it doesn't matter; they both mean the same thing.

 

[7thMoon]

In the third clause, the Word (ὁ Λόγος) is the subject and God (Θεὸς) is the predicate nominative. That is, this is a predicate nominative construction (https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/predicate_nominative.htm), but more specifically, an anarthrous predicate nominative since Θεὸς doesn't have the article.

This is true, but ο λογος starts another sentence after ην being that it is a nominative. God's name is the word. It is the only logical way to understand most of the fifth verse. The second verse is started late because of poor understanding of Biblical/Koine Greek.

 

[7thMoon]

***Where is that?***

John 1:1

1 En archē ēn ho Logos kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon kai Theos ēn ho Logos
1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος , καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν , καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος .
1 In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was with - God and God was the Word .

 

[Free]

This is true, but ο λογος starts another sentence after ην being that it is a nominative. God's name is the word. It is the only logical way to understand most of the fifth verse. The second verse is started late because of poor understanding of Biblical/Koine Greek.

I have no idea what you're saying here. And you have yet to provide any source to back up any of your claims.

 

[7thMoon]

I have no idea what you're saying here. And you have yet to provide any source to back up any of your claims.

ο λογος is not in the 3rd clause.

 

[Free]

ο λογος is not in the 3rd clause.

How do you know and what source can you give to backup that claim? Even if it wasn’t, why would that matter?

 

[JLB]

Even most trinitarian scholars admit that 1 John 5:7 (as found in the KJV) is a late addition to text and not in any early NT Greek manuscript.

Oh here we go with … ”that” scripture really isn’t in the Bible.

• This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
• For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
• And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. 1 John 5:6-8

Your man made theology is not scriptural.


The Godhead is the Father, The Word, and the Spirit.


These three are one.






JLB

 

[7thMoon]

How do you know and what source can you give to backup that claim? Even if it wasn’t, why would that matter?

Because it begins the next statement as a subject nominative. A personal verb would do the same. Greek has 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular or plural verbs.

 

[Free]

Because it begins the next statement as a subject nominative. A personal verb would do the same. Greek has 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular or plural verbs.

Again, how do you know and can you provide a legitimate scholarly source to back up your claim? This is important because you’re saying every Bible translation, which had many scholars with relevant education and expertise working on them, got it wrong. That is an incredible claim that needs evidence.

 

[tigger 2]

It does take a lot of effort. I've been debating and studying this topic for over 20 years. Nothing in your blogs factually proves that 1:1c should read "a god." First, that translation is to be rejected outright purely on the basis that God himself says there is no other god and there never will be. So, the larger context of the Bible precludes such a translation. The idea of lesser gods not only falls under that, but is also Gnostic in origin.

Second, it is to be rejected based also on the first clause of 1:1. It shows that when the beginning began, when the creation of time and space started, the Word was already in existence. That can only mean one thing--the Word existed prior to creation of all time and space, and so has timeless existence. Being that timeless existence belongs to God alone, we can logically conclude that the Word is God in nature. This is affirmed by Jesus's own words in John 17:5--that he shared the glory of the Father before the world existed (before creation).

Third, the second clause states that the Word was in intimate union and communion with God.

Since John could not have put the article in before theos, as that would then equate the Word and God and promote modalism, he had to leave it out. But what does that show us? It shows us that he is reaffirming what he has just stated--that the Word is God in nature. That is the only possible meaning when we take all of Scripture into account, as we must.

Whether John 1:1c says "God" or "in nature God," it doesn't matter; they both mean the same thing.

...........................................
Still won't reply to the facts actually written in my study concerning John's uses of all his examples which are truly parallel to John 1:1c. Shame.

 

[7thMoon]

Again, how do you know and can you provide a legitimate scholarly source to back up your claim? This is important because you’re saying every Bible translation, which had many scholars with relevant education and expertise working on them, got it wrong. That is an incredible claim that needs evidence.

Mounce, and everyone who writes Greek grammars say the nominative case is the subject case. It doesn't take much to see ην is the end of the clause, because the next word is not accusative. What probably gets you most is how the law is supposed to condemn all flesh.

 

[7thMoon]

That is an incredible claim that needs evidence.

It becomes less incredible, when you know the ambiguity that they have with nouns in a standard grammar textbook. Even the knowledge of verbs is incomplete. But why emphasize verbs more.

which had many scholars with relevant education and expertise working on them, got it wrong.

I find it more believable that they are fallible. I like the charts in the textbooks, but not the confusing and confused linguistics which makes everything difficult for everyone.

 

[Free]

...........................................
Still won't reply to the facts actually written in my study concerning John's uses of all his examples which are truly parallel to John 1:1c. Shame.

I don’t have that much time to go through your lengthy blogs. Copy and paste here what you think is relevant and we can discuss it. I guarantee that none of it matters though, as God himself said there were no other gods and never would be. Don’t you agree that that precludes “a god” as a possible interpretation?

 

[7thMoon]

I don’t have that much time to go through your lengthy blogs. Copy and paste here what you think is relevant and we can discuss it. I guarantee that none of it matters though, as God himself said there were no other gods and never would be. Don’t you agree that that precludes “a god” as a possible interpretation?

There are other gods who are supernatural, not other gods who created [the] planet. There could only be one such God.

 

[Free]

Mounce, and everyone who writes Greek grammars say the nominative case is the subject case. It doesn't take much to see ην is the end of the clause, because the next word is not accusative.

The it should be easy to provide a legitimate scholarly source to auooort your claim.

What probably gets you most is how the law is supposed to condemn all flesh.

I have no idea what your point is or how this can possibly relate to the discussion.

It becomes less incredible, when you know the ambiguity that they have with nouns in a standard grammar textbook. Even the knowledge of verbs is incomplete. But why emphasize verbs more.


I find it more believable that they are fallible. I like the charts in the textbooks, but not the confusing and confused linguistics which makes everything difficult for everyone.

You have shown previously that you don’t understand the Greek and never did provide a source for those assertions. I can provide sources for everything 8’ve claimed, and I have. I await your sources.

There are other gods who are supernatural, not other gods who created planet. There could only be one such God.

The Bible unequivocally states that there are no other gods and never will be. God himself says that. Wouldn’t that make God a liar or ignorant and therefore not omniscient? Either way, he would cease to be God. I prefer to believe what God has stated clearly. Everything else must be understood based on that foundation.

 

[7thMoon]

The it should be easy to provide a legitimate scholarly source to auooort your claim.

Since you don't know nominative means, my quoting other sources than the textbook won't help you.

I have no idea what your point is or how this can possibly relate to the discussion.

Do you believe in ECT?

You have shown previously that you don’t understand the Greek and never did provide a source for those assertions. I can provide sources for everything 8’ve claimed, and I have. I await your sources.

Do you understand what accusative means? You do have a fundamental grasp of Greek nouns.

The Bible unequivocally states that there are no other gods and never will be. God himself says that. Wouldn’t that make God a liar or ignorant and therefore not omniscient? Either way, he would cease to be God. I prefer to believe what God has stated clearly. Everything else must be understood based on that foundation.

No it doesn't. It states there is only one Most High and that the sons of the God, the angels, were also gods. I am not talking Mormonism here.

 

[GodsGrace]

It does take a lot of effort. I've been debating and studying this topic for over 20 years. Nothing in your blogs factually proves that 1:1c should read "a god." First, that translation is to be rejected outright purely on the basis that God himself says there is no other god and there never will be. So, the larger context of the Bible precludes such a translation. The idea of lesser gods not only falls under that, but is also Gnostic in origin.

Second, it is to be rejected based also on the first clause of 1:1. It shows that when the beginning began, when the creation of time and space started, the Word was already in existence. That can only mean one thing--the Word existed prior to creation of all time and space, and so has timeless existence. Being that timeless existence belongs to God alone, we can logically conclude that the Word is God in nature. This is affirmed by Jesus's own words in John 17:5--that he shared the glory of the Father before the world existed (before creation).

Third, the second clause states that the Word was in intimate union and communion with God.

Since John could not have put the article in before theos, as that would then equate the Word and God and promote modalism, he had to leave it out. But what does that show us? It shows us that he is reaffirming what he has just stated--that the Word is God in nature. That is the only possible meaning when we take all of Scripture into account, as we must.

Whether John 1:1c says "God" or "in nature God," it doesn't matter; they both mean the same thing.

Would you agree that adding the "a" to John 1:1,
AND THE WORD WAS "A" GOD.....

Would create 2 gods?

I have 2 JW friends that can't grasp this.
Am I wrong?

 

[GodsGrace]

Since you don't know nominative means, my quoting other sources than the textbook won't help you.


Do you believe in ECT?


Do you understand what accusative means? You do have a fundamental grasp of Greek nouns.


No it doesn't. It states there is only one Most High and that the sons of the God, the angels, were also gods. I am not talking Mormonism here.

The Angels are sons of God?
I can't think of any verse just off hand.
Could you provide one?

BTW, in this forum, Theology, you must use scripture to back up your statements.

 

[7thMoon]

The Angels are sons of God?
I can't think of any verse just off hand.
Could you provide one?

BTW, in this forum, Theology, you must use scripture to back up your statements.

(Psalms 82:6 NET) I thought, 'You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.'