The Trinity

[Free]

Another assumption.

That one uneducated in the biblical languages must refer to those who are to at least help and avoid serious error is somehow an assumption? Not at all. If even the scholars and theologians--those who are formally educated in such matters--even disagree as to a translation of a single word or phrase, and there are many such disagreements, then surely those of us who are uneducated in such matters should not think that we are smarter or better than they and can figure it out on our own. That is the height of arrogance and spiritual superiority, and not biblical.

I would advise you to give it a try, it's the only way you will ever partake of unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:19 "Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land."

Matthew 16:6 "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

What do you mean by this?

Now, if you don't mind, I would like to get back to the topic.

Of course.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By Free,

What do you mean by this?

As far as the "creeds" and "denominational traditions of men" - what do you think "the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" is?

And please do not infer I am being arrogant here, because nothing can be further from the truth. This is again, a fifth assumption on your part that I find offensive to say the least. Am I arrogant? Sometimes, we ALL are - but certainly not here. It is simply your opinion that one is arrogant if they do not at all rely on any creeds or traditions of men, and only your opinion. Many do not rely on them, or even pay attention to them for that matter. The Scriptures and guidance from the Holy Spirit is sufficient for me, even though that may not be the case for you.

 

[Free]

As far as the "creeds" and "denominational traditions of men" - what do you think "the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" is?

And yet you posting your own ideas about the Bible is essentially no different--they are your own creeds and traditions.

And please do not infer I am being arrogant here

I didn't. It was a general statement.

It is simply your opinion that one is arrogant if they do not at all rely on any creeds or traditions of men, and only your opinion.

It is my opinion that one is arrogant if they shun the opinions of others to the exclusion of their own, particularly in regards to difficult matters that they are not educated in. That simply is unbiblical.

 

[Asyncritus]

God BECAME flesh!

The way you believe: Man became flesh.

Wrong. The word became flesh.

Because he took on the likeness of sinful flesh, do you think that diminished His qualities as God.

Since this didn't happen, you have no case.

God was manifested in the flesh.

Wrong again. Look, do I have to go over this ground again?

You either believe and confess by being baptized or you are damned.

Quite true.

 

[farouk]

Wrong. The word became flesh.


Since this didn't happen, you have no case.



Wrong again. Look, do I have to go over this ground again?



Quite true.

Actually, God was indeed manifested in the flesh: 1 Timothy 3.16 says so.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By Free,

It is my opinion that one is arrogant if they shun the opinions of others to the exclusion of their own, particularly in regards to difficult matters that they are not educated in. That simply is unbiblical.

Not ALL opinions. Just the opinions that "add to" or "take away from" Scripture, like "the trinity," which is the topic I would like to get back to. Because someone doesn't agree with you Free, does not mean they are not formerly educated in the ancient languages. Would you like us to come right out and flaunt our educational degrees Free, is that what you want? How about scanning them and posting a photo of them? Just because some are humble and modest and do not like talking about, or bringing attention to themselves, does not give you the right to assume ANYTHING. You assume, because you disagree, which means ZERO, and has no bearing on the truth. So stop assuming and being rude with the subtle jabs and personal attacks in your posts. Moderators are supposed to stop these kinds of personal cracks, not instigate them.


PS - Next time I'm talking to gregghead, or I'll just leave the forum. Getting tired of the fighting and rude remarks in here anyway.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free wrote:

It is my opinion that one is arrogant if they shun the opinions of others to the
exclusion of their own, particularly in regards to difficult matters that they
are not educated in. That simply is unbiblical.

Does that mean, Free, that you no longer stand by this incorrect statement you made in an earlier post concerning John 1:1?:

“In verse 1, the English 'in' is the Greek en, which expresses continuous action in the past, or absolute existence.â€

 

[JLB]

Not ALL opinions. Just the opinions that "add to" or "take away from" Scripture, like "the trinity," which is the topic I would like to get back to. Because someone doesn't agree with you Free, does not mean they are not formerly educated in the ancient languages. Would you like us to come right out and flaunt our educational degrees Free, is that what you want? How about scanning them and posting a photo of them? Just because some are humble and modest and do not like talking about, or bringing attention to themselves, does not give you the right to assume ANYTHING. You assume, because you disagree, which means ZERO, and has no bearing on the truth. So stop assuming and being rude with the subtle jabs and personal attacks in your posts. Moderators are supposed to stop these kinds of personal cracks, not instigate them.


PS - Next time I'm talking to gregghead, or I'll just leave the forum. Getting tired of the fighting and rude remarks in here anyway.

Os,

don't keep going on and on.

Just lay out some truth on the Trinity.

I would like to hear what you have to say.


JLB

 

[Free]

It is my opinion that one is arrogant if they shun the opinions of others to the exclusion of their own, particularly in regards to difficult matters that they are not educated in. That simply is unbiblical.

Does that mean, Free, that you no longer stand by this incorrect statement you made in an earlier post concerning John 1:1?:

“In verse 1, the English 'in' is the Greek en, which expresses continuous action in the past, or absolute existence.â€

Not at all. It very much supports my point. I spoke from memory but I have gotten that from more than one source.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Not at all. It very much supports my point. I spoke from memory but I have gotten that from more than one source.

But I have posted the following information for you on several different occasions:

ἐν (epsilon nu) is a preposition with a number of meanings such as ‘in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ etc. It is written in English letters as en. The Greek looks like ev in English letters.

ην (eta nu) is the imperfect verb ‘was’ which I think you are pointing to since ‘in’ does not express action or existence as a verb does. It is often written in English letters as hn and sometimes en. The Greek letters look like nv in English letters.


ην is in the imperfect tense (most scholars) at John 1:1a, and we find that it could be interpreted as "In the beginning, the Word began to exist." - See Dana and Mantey, pp. 190-191 ("Inceptive Imperfect"); Moule, p. 9 (Inceptive Imperfect is "frequent
in the N.T.").

Even Daniel B. Wallace admits that “The imperfect is
often used to stress the beginning of an action, with the implication that it continued for some time,” - p. 544, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=36676&p=561297&highlight=#post561297

 

[JLB]

But I have posted the following information for you on several different occasions:

ἐν

(epsilon nu) is a preposition with a number of meanings such as ‘in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ etc. It is written in English letters as en. The Greek looks like ev in English letters.

ην(eta nu) is the imperfect verb ‘was’ which I think you are pointing to since ‘in’ does not express action or existence as a verb does. It is often written in English letters as hn and sometimes en. The Greek letters look like nv in English letters.


ηνis in the imperfect tense (most scholars) at John 1:1a, and we find that it could be interpreted as "In the beginning, the Word began to exist." - See Dana and Mantey, pp. 190-191 ("Inceptive Imperfect"); Moule, p. 9 (Inceptive Imperfect is "frequent
in the N.T.").

Even Daniel B. Wallace admits that “The imperfect is
often used to stress the beginning of an action, with the
implication that it continued for some time,†- p. 544, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=36676&p=561297&highlight=#post561297

Brother, what is your point?

Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord. The Lord of lords!

JLB

 

[Free]

But I have posted the following information for you on several different occasions:

ἐν

(epsilon nu) is a preposition with a number of meanings such as ‘in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ etc. It is written in English letters as en. The Greek looks like ev in English letters.

ην(eta nu) is the imperfect verb ‘was’ which I think you are pointing to since ‘in’ does not express action or existence as a verb does. It is often written in English letters as hn and sometimes en. The Greek letters look like nv in English letters.


ηνis in the imperfect tense (most scholars) at John 1:1a, and we find that it could be interpreted as "In the beginning, the Word began to exist." - See Dana and Mantey, pp. 190-191 ("Inceptive Imperfect"); Moule, p. 9 (Inceptive Imperfect is "frequent in the N.T.").

Even Daniel B. Wallace admits that “The imperfect is
often used to stress the beginning of an action, with the
implication that it continued for some time,†- p. 544, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=36676&p=561297&highlight=#post561297

Sorry, yes, I meant en is the Greek for "was," not "in." Context determines the correct meaning. Any ambiguity in meaning is removed by what John says in verse 3:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that the Word was not made, hence, eternal preexistence, or "continuous action in the past" (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p 50).

 

[Free]

Sorry, yes, I meant en is the Greek for "was," not "in." Context determines the correct meaning. Any ambiguity in meaning is removed by what John says in verse 3:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that the Word was not made, hence, eternal preexistence, or "continuous action in the past" (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p 50).

I should add that further support is found in verse 14:

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. (ESV)

Here, when John says "the Word became flesh," he uses the Greek egeneto, which speaks of a coming into existence, a point of origin. Incidentally, this is the very word he uses in verse 3 in speaking of "all things" being "made through him." It is very significant that John only uses en of the Word in the first thirteen verses and uses egeneto of everything else. In verse 14 then it becomes clear why he uses egeneto of the Word. (Adapted from White's The Forgotten Trinity and M. R. Vincent's Word Studies).

Clearly John is contrasting the eternal preexistence of the Word with the coming into being of everything else, everything that has been made.

 

[Asyncritus]

These types of arguments simply do nothing to show that Jesus isn't God but rather reveal a lack of understanding about the Trinity and all that Scripture reveals about God, including the mystery of the Incarnation.

You are on the horns of a dilemma, Free.

I asked you (and JLB, smaller, SBG etc) the question:

If Mary was Jesus' mother, and Jesus was God, then Mary was the mother of God. There's no escaping that conclusion, and the catholics have taken that position.

This is the consequence of avoiding plain scriptures.

But you haven't answered the question. How about it?

 

[Asyncritus]

I should add that further support is found in verse 14:

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. (ESV)

So the word become flesh is Jesus, right?

So Jesus become flesh is Jesus, right?

Here, when John says "the Word became flesh," he uses the Greek egeneto, which speaks of a coming into existence, a point of origin.

And he is right to do so. All the word of God had promised, prophesied, intended came into being, and had a beginning as you rightly say above.

When was that?

In Mary's womb, is one response to that. When He was conceived, is another.

But you don't accept that He was conceived, really, as I have pointed out on several occasions.

And you have yet another problem, don't you?

"Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" says Psalm 2.

Which day was that? Seems obvious that John is referring to that day, when he says that the word became flesh. Therefore there was a particular day when that happened.

So all this pre-existence thing is somewhat dubious on the strength of that one verse.

Incidentally, this is the very word he uses in verse 3 in speaking of "all things" being "made through him." It is very significant that John only uses en of the Word in the first thirteen verses and uses egeneto of everything else. In verse 14 then it becomes clear why he uses egeneto of the Word. (Adapted from White's The Forgotten Trinity and M. R. Vincent's Word Studies).

Suppose that at one point in time 'all things' came into existence (egeneto).

Then logically, at one point in time Jesus came into existence too (egeneto).

When was that? See above for answer.

Clearly John is contrasting the eternal preexistence of the Word with the coming into being of everything else, everything that has been made.

Clearly, he is not.

Jesus 'came into existence'. 'All things 'came into existence' too. When?

In the 'beginning'. Of what?

In scripture, there are an awful lot of 'beginnings' as logic would lead us to expect. Here's a handful:

Genesis 13:3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai;

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

Deuteronomy 11:12 A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.

Judges 7:19 So Gideon, and the hundred men that were with him, came unto the outside of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch; and they had but newly set the watch: and they blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers that were in their hands.

Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

Wonderful things, concordances.

On what grounds, therefore, can you claim that Jn 1 is referring to Gen 1, and not some other beginning? I could suggest a relevant few, starting with:

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

1 John 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

This actually gives us a date for the beginning. Here it is:

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
John 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

When was that? Shortly before Jesus died and rose again. Could that be the beginning?

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

So John is saying that Jesus had a beginning.

Equally, he tells us what the word is. "...the Word of life;"

So:

In the beginning [whichever one that may be, but it looks from the above, that it might be the beginning of Jesus' ministry] was the Word [of life].

And the Word [of life] was with God - yes, we can easily understand that: Psalms 36:9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

And the Word [of life] was God - as has been pointed out many times, the definite article is absent there, and usually (ask your theological wordbooks about this one) expresses a quality, rather than a person.

And the Word [of life] was divine (Moffatt) - and how true is that!

It isn't an easy passage to understand, whichever point of view you may take up. But I think you have seen that there are other possiblities other than your present one, which are also deserving of consideration.

 

[JLB]

So the word become flesh is Jesus, right?

So Jesus become flesh is Jesus, right?

And he is right to do so. All the word of God had promised, prophesied, intended came into being, and had a beginning as you rightly say above.

When was that?

In Mary's womb, is one response to that. When He was conceived, is another.

But you don't accept that He was conceived, really, as I have pointed out on several occasions.

And you have yet another problem, don't you?

"Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" says Psalm 2.

Which day was that? Seems obvious that John is referring to that day, when he says that the word became flesh. Therefore there was a particular day when that happened.

So all this pre-existence thing is somewhat dubious on the strength of that one verse.

Suppose that at one point in time 'all things' came into existence (egeneto).

Then logically, at one point in time Jesus came into existence too (egeneto).

When was that? See above for answer.
Clearly, he is not.

Jesus 'came into existence'. 'All things 'came into existence' too. When?

In the 'beginning'. Of what?

In scripture, there are an awful lot of 'beginnings' as logic would lead us to expect. Here's a handful:

Genesis 13:3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai;

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

Deuteronomy 11:12 A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.

Judges 7:19 So Gideon, and the hundred men that were with him, came unto the outside of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch; and they had but newly set the watch: and they blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers that were in their hands.

Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

Wonderful things, concordances.

On what grounds, therefore, can you claim that Jn 1 is referring to Gen 1, and not some other beginning? I could suggest a relevant few, starting with:

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

1 John 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

This actually gives us a date for the beginning. Here it is:

When was that? Shortly before Jesus died and rose again. Could that be the beginning?

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

So John is saying that Jesus had a beginning.

Equally, he tells us what the word is. "...the Word of life;"

So:

In the beginning [whichever one that may be, but it looks from the above, that it might be the beginning of Jesus' ministry] was the Word [of life].

And the Word [of life] was with God - yes, we can easily understand that: Psalms 36:9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

And the Word [of life] was God - as has been pointed out many times, the definite article is absent there, and usually (ask your theological wordbooks about this one) expresses a quality, rather than a person.

And the Word [of life] was divine (Moffatt) - and how true is that!

It isn't an easy passage to understand, whichever point of view you may take up. But I think you have seen that there are other possiblities other than your present one, which are also deserving of consideration.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3

The Word is declared to be God!

The Word is declared to have made all things.

The Word is declared to be One with God.


All the lexicon gymnastics in the world will not change that.


The Word became flesh!

God was manifested in the flesh.

Maybe, in your mind, He stopped being God because He became flesh, if that's what your conclusion is, then that's on you.


Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever!

You have a choice to believe it or not!


Unless a man is born again, he can not see the kingdom of God!

In the kingdom, we believe first, then we see! Not the other way around!


JLB

 

[rrowell]

You are on the horns of a dilemma, Free.

I asked you (and JLB, smaller, SBG etc) the question:

If Mary was Jesus' mother, and Jesus was God, then Mary was the mother of God. There's no escaping that conclusion, and the catholics have taken that position.

This is the consequence of avoiding plain scriptures.

But you haven't answered the question. How about it?

How or why would anyone think that Jesus mother would have any traits of Jesus Father?. does anyone's mother have the same traits of there father?

 

[BornAgain]

How or why would anyone think that Jesus mother would have any traits of Jesus Father?. does anyone's mother have the same traits of there father?

My mother had some her father's traits...

 

[Free]

You are on the horns of a dilemma, Free.

I asked you (and JLB, smaller, SBG etc) the question:

If Mary was Jesus' mother, and Jesus was God, then Mary was the mother of God. There's no escaping that conclusion, and the catholics have taken that position.

This is the consequence of avoiding plain scriptures.

But you haven't answered the question. How about it?

I see you still do not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity actually states. It perhaps could be said that Mary is the mother of God but only in the sense that Jesus is both God and man and Mary was the one who bore him and was his mother. But can it be said in any other sense that Mary was actually the mother of God, as though God is a created being? Of course not.

 

[Osgiliath]

Just in case you missed it rrowell, I've answered those questions you requested:

Before we begin, I would like to know where you stand, do you believe Jesus is God or only a man, do you believe Jesus was ever a God before he was a man, answer those two questions

This question comes as a surprise, because I have thoroughly gone over this in my previous posts in this thread, but I will answer again:


2 Corinthians 4:4 "Christ, Who is the IMAGE of the invisible God"

Revelation 3:14 "The BEGINNING of the creation of God"

Matthew 16:16 "Thou art the Christ, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD"

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

2 John 3 "The Lord Jesus Christ, the SON OF THE FATHER"

John 8:42 "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."

Mark 10;18 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God [the Father]."

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Greek - Jesus is the Logos of God).

• Is Christ God? YES HE IS!

Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he God saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

And:

Philippians 2:6 "Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

• Is Christ worthy of worship? YES HE IS!

Matthew 8:2 "And lo! A leper, coming to Him, WORSHIPED Him, saying..."

Matthew 9:18 "While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and WORSHIPED Him"

Matthew 14:33 "Then they that were in the ship came and WORSHIPED Him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

Matthew 15:25 "Then came she and WORSHIPED Him, saying, Lord, help me."


So Christ is called "God," and did not consider it robbery to be "equal" with God

• Do I believe Jesus was ever a God before He was a man?

YES! Christ is Yahweh - the God of the Old Testament.

Jesus said,

John 5:37 "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at ANY TIME, nor seen his shape."

Also,

1 Peter 1:10 "Of which salvation ["verse 9- "the salvation of your soul"] the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1 Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."


The prophets (and angels = messengers) desire to understand what is now revealed to us about the "salvation that we are receiving... which was NOT unto themselves but unto us."

And who was it that was telling the Old Testament prophets all of this? "...the Spirit of Christ which was in them" (1 Peter 1:11 - above)

Obviously, because:

John 5:37 "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."

Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, etc. saw the shape and heard the voice of Yahweh the LORD. Who they assumed was the Father was really 'the word [which] was with God.' It was Christ!

Matthew 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

Luke 10:22 "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."