The Trinity

[Johann!@#]

You never addressed the scriptures I posted.

The OP is about the Trinity, not water baptism.

J.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann,

Why would I want to "dominate" you and this long running thread? I hardly post here.

I apologise for my inappropriate comment. In retrospect mainly I was frustrated at our lack of progress in our discussion. I could have been in a bad mood as well.

You are way off on the doctrine of Christ Jesus, His incarnation and conception.

I consider that we have both adequately stated our different perspectives on this important subject.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Then your only possible interpretation of John 8:58 is that Jesus is saying, "before Abraham was, I am the Messiah." But, again, that makes no grammatical sense

I find the more possibilities that you suggest, and in the process tying yourself with a number of ropes with knots that cannot be undone, the more I am convinced of the simple and clear meaning of Jesus' statement. For a start, it is part of the theme mentioned in the following and then continued on in the immediate context and circumstances of John 7 and 8.

John 4:25–26 (KJV): 26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 7:25–26 (KJV): 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

John 8:24 (KJV): I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:56–58 (KJV -adjusted): 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am he.

Abraham, by means of the promises concerning the Messiah, and by the events of Genesis 22 looked forward to the ministry and sacrifice of Jesus, and foresaw this day of Jesus and was glad. The Pharisees did not endorse this, even if they understood his claim, but deliberately muddied the waters by deriding him, and asking if he was 2000 years old. Jesus answered that the promise of Messiah predated Abraham who had looked forward to Jesus and his day, as Jesus is also the Messiah who promised concerning the seed of Eve and that he was also the Messiah who was in the plan and purpose of God before creation.

And anti-Trinitarians will call them erroneous simply because they make a stronger case for the deity of Jesus. The fact is that the vast majority of textual evidence has come to light after the KJV was made.

The sad fact is that there are two different wordings in the different manuscripts. I can only conjecture that the ECF's who were astray and then the Apostate Trinitarian Church that followed preserved the one that supported the Trinity. As I asked Johann!@#, what manuscript did the faction of the early Ebionites who believed in the Virgin Birth possess? Many years ago I used to work with a Plymouth Brother who was an expert in the Greek text. The only portion of the Scripture that he mentioned to me that he rejected was John 7:53-John 8:1-8. Many years later I am convinced that this is a correct portion of John's Gospel and also placed in the correct position, even though many modern authorities reject this, or at least hold this passage in doubt and its location in doubt. This fairly neutral example makes me very skeptical about some of this "scholarship".

It doesn't matter whether we really understand it. The Bible says what it does in Phil. 2:6-8. We can't simply ignore that passage because we find something incomprehensible or incompatible with our beliefs.

I do not ignore that passage. I have an alternative perspective of Philippians 2:6-8 that it speaks of the humble disposition of the mind of Jesus in his youth and in his ministry.

No, Mary has nothing to do with Jesus being the Son of God. He is the Son of God only because he is the Son of the Father.

I was carefully trying to speak about the conception and exclude the concept of the incarnation. Jesus is the Son of God by birth, not the transfer of God the Son into the womb of Mary. Mary has a large involvement in the whole process.

What does that have to do with anything? You can't just go making random connections in Scripture because you don't agree with the plain meaning of a text.

Zechariah 3 and Jude reveal that the Angel of Yahweh is Michael and that some scriptures grant him the nomenclature "Yahweh". I consider that Genesis 18 is a similar example.

Exodus 23:20–21 (KJV): 20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Johann!@#]

I apologise for my inappropriate comment. In retrospect mainly I was frustrated at our lack of progress in our discussion. I could have been in a bad mood as well.

No need to apologize, we all have our "moody" days in intense moments of fellowship.

J.

 

[JLB]

Abraham, by means of the promises concerning the Messiah, and by the events of Genesis 22

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Genesis 17:1-2

Who do you believe appeared to Abraham, and made covenant with him?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetngs again JLB,

Who do you believe appeared to Abraham, and made covenant with him?

The Angel of Yahweh who spoke and acted on behalf of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. This is similar to what I posted above concerning the Angel of Yahweh being called Yahweh in Zechariah 3 and also Exodus 23:20-21. Yahweh Himself was in heaven.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Greetngs again JLB,

The Angel of Yahweh who spoke and acted on behalf of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. This is similar to what I posted above concerning the Angel of Yahweh being called Yahweh in Zechariah 3 and also Exodus 23:20-21. Yahweh Himself was in heaven.

Kind regards
Trevor

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6

The Angel of the LORD is Jesus the Son of God before He became flesh.

Do you agree?

 

[Fish153]

I have to admit that I am often amazed at those who claim Jesus was NOT God. There have already been MANY scriptures shared (and the Bible is full of them) that prove Jesus was God. But to me, this is the simplest:

"In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was GOD". (John 1:1)

"And the WORD BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us, and we beheld his Glory, as the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth" (John 1:14)

Yes---the Jehovah's Witnesses, and a couple of others try to manipulate and twist John 1:1. The JW's twist it so badly that they have "the Word was A god" in an effort to remove the divinity of Christ. It is blasphemous and very dishonest to say the least. The Word of God definitely reveals that Jesus was God in the flesh. How anyone can miss that or try to get around it boggles my mind.

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

I find the more possibilities that you suggest, and in the process tying yourself with a number of ropes with knots that cannot be undone, the more I am convinced of the simple and clear meaning of Jesus' statement.

You seem to have misunderstood. There is only one possibility--that Jesus was claiming timeless existence. My argument to other possibilities is to your position. I agree that Jesus's statement was simple and clear, which is precisely why it cannot be your understanding of the statement, since it makes Jesus say nonsense.

For a start, it is part of the theme mentioned in the following and then continued on in the immediate context and circumstances of John 7 and 8.

John 4:25–26 (KJV): 26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 7:25–26 (KJV): 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

John 8:24 (KJV): I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:56–58 (KJV -adjusted): 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am he.

And all this is part of the context of John 1:1-18, where John unequivocally states that the Son is the Word who has existed for all eternity in interpersonal relationship with God, is God in nature, and was involved in the creation of everything that was ever created by God.

Part of the context is also the rest of the book of John, where Jesus repeatedly states that he came from heaven; where John the Baptist states that Jesus was before him, even though John was born first; where John the apostle says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, when Isaiah says he saw the glory of Yahweh; where Jesus accepted worship from his disciples; where Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God; etc.

Ignoring context and proof-texting are the main anti-Trinitarian tactics, as is consistently ignoring the hardest passages and arguments. It makes me sad, actually, since it is an active attempt to not fully understand.

As I have stated several times before, John 8:24 and 28 grammatically allow for "I am he," but verse 24 can also allow for simply "I am." It is also the case that you're ignoring the context of verse 23: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world" (ESV).

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, "I am he" simply makes no grammatical sense or contextual sense in light of the question in verse 57. You simply want verse 58 to say "he," nothing more, and so are ramming it in there despite it making Jesus say nonsense.

Abraham, by means of the promises concerning the Messiah, and by the events of Genesis 22 looked forward to the ministry and sacrifice of Jesus, and foresaw this day of Jesus and was glad. The Pharisees did not endorse this, even if they understood his claim, but deliberately muddied the waters by deriding him, and asking if he was 2000 years old. Jesus answered that the promise of Messiah predated Abraham who had looked forward to Jesus and his day, as Jesus is also the Messiah who promised concerning the seed of Eve and that he was also the Messiah who was in the plan and purpose of God before creation.

No. The Jews didn't ask about the promise of the Messiah in verse 57; they very clearly asked about Jesus's age. It doesn't matter that they "muddied the waters by deriding him," Jesus directly answered their question. His answer is very clearly that Abraham's past existence was temporary, but he has always existed.

The sad fact is that there are two different wordings in the different manuscripts.

Yes, but ultimately there is no difference in meaning, since monogenes does not mean "begetting" or "procreation." It means "unique" or "only" or "one and only."

I can only conjecture that the ECF's who were astray and then the Apostate Trinitarian Church that followed preserved the one that supported the Trinity.

This shows that you don't seem to know how the whole process of copying worked, as it would have been impossible to simply preserve one reading over another.

As I asked Johann!@#, what manuscript did the faction of the early Ebionites who believed in the Virgin Birth possess? Many years ago I used to work with a Plymouth Brother who was an expert in the Greek text. The only portion of the Scripture that he mentioned to me that he rejected was John 7:53-John 8:1-8. Many years later I am convinced that this is a correct portion of John's Gospel and also placed in the correct position, even though many modern authorities reject this, or at least hold this passage in doubt and its location in doubt. This fairly neutral example makes me very skeptical about some of this "scholarship".

And, yet, you aren't a scholar. The best position for us laypersons is generally either on the side of what the consensus is or remain agnostic and hold the different positions in tension. That's not to say we can't choose a side, but we had better understand the issues thoroughly and be able to provide solid reasons to justify our position.

I do not ignore that passage. I have an alternative perspective of Philippians 2:6-8 that it speaks of the humble disposition of the mind of Jesus in his youth and in his ministry.

Yes, that is what the passage is about, I have said so myself--it is the greatest example of humility that could ever be conceived--but you're ignoring the actual words it uses to do so. Those words unequivocally show that the Son is eternal, being God in nature, but took on human flesh, which is exactly why it is the greatest example of humility.

I was carefully trying to speak about the conception and exclude the concept of the incarnation. Jesus is the Son of God by birth, not the transfer of God the Son into the womb of Mary. Mary has a large involvement in the whole process.

Jesus is the Son of God by nature, not birth. That is what the NT consistently affirms.

Zechariah 3 and Jude reveal that the Angel of Yahweh is Michael and that some scriptures grant him the nomenclature "Yahweh".

He is an angel and if a given text doesn't specify, we should never assume. Take a text in what it plainly states, and what we see in Gen. 18 is that Yahweh appeared with two angels in the form of men. Then we are very clearly told that there was also a Yahweh in heaven. There is no need to go beyond that and say one was an angel, never mind Michael, when the text doesn't even hint at it. You need to stop putting your theology ahead of Scripture, as it leads you to read things into the text and so change what is often plainly stated.

I consider that Genesis 18 is a similar example.

Exodus 23:20–21 (KJV): 20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

But, here we are told that that is the case. We can't use passages like this to just read into other passages whenever it suits our position.