The Trinity

[Free]

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?

The Word become flesh is Jesus. John makes that very plain.

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.

Again, this shows you really do not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. Your whole argument here completely ignores what John states from the very first verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It ignores the very context which I have given.

The main problem, which continually comes up with anti-trinitarians, is that one finds such a verse and thinks it proves the Trinity wrong or somehow puts it into question. What you are doing is pitting Scripture against itself in such a way that one must prevail over the other. The doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that Scripture states without causing those verses which clearly speak of the humanity of Christ to prevail over those which clearly speak of his deity, and vice versa. We must accept both his humanity and his deity, as the Bible clearly reveals to us is the case.

To say that verses which speak of Christ's humanity means that he is only a creature and not God is to do violence to Scripture, the person of Christ and the being of God. It is no different than if one was to argue that those verses which clearly speak of Christ's deity means that he is only God and not a man, but that is to do the same violence.

So, no, it does not put the Son's eternal preexistence into any doubt.

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.

The Son, the Word, has always existed as God but then entered into time as the God-man, Jesus. This is what John is clearly and plainly showing.

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?

It cannot be more clear that John is referring to the beginning of Creation, to Gen 1:1.

Wonderful things, concordances.

And so is the Bible, when one knows how to use it properly.

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.

These are not at all relevant. Why you insist on ignoring the immediate context of John 1 and prefer to jump around Scripture is beyond me. Looking at the immediate context:

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.

John goes right from speaking about the Word being "in the beginning with God," to speaking of creation. It simply cannot be made more clear that John is alluding to Gen 1:1.

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].

This is such a stretch that it really does remove all credibility regarding your understanding of Scripture and how to properly interpret it. You are going to a completely different book in an attempt to get an understanding for a word which is already very clear in the immediate context of the passage in question. That simply is not good exegetical practice, not good at all.

You are forcing a meaning on the text of John 1 which is completely unwarranted.

 

[Free]

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.

But it is an easy passage to understand. The context makes it very clear to whom John is referring and to when he is referring. You have made it more difficult by unnecessarily jumping around Scripture, resulting in a very incorrect interpretation of Scripture. This is precisely what happens when relies on their own interpretation to the exclusion of all else.

Let's look at the lack of an article before theos--which is to say it is anarthrous--as it has been brought up before. I don't disagree with you on this, other than the conclusion you draw from it, but let's look at it closely since it is extremely important to understand what John is saying in the opening statements of his book.

It is highly significant that John uses the article only of logos, the Word, and not of theos, God. If John had used the article on both then "God was the Word" and the "Word was God" become the same. If he had used an article on neither, "God" and "Word" become interchangeable and "all of God" equates to "all of the Word". Clearly neither of these ideas cannot be not the case.

So to avoid this, John uses theos anarthrously, making logos the subject of the clause. He is speaking about who the Word is, not who God is. There are three possible understandings: indefinite--"a god", definite--"God", and qualitative--"in nature God."

It cannot be "a god," as that leads to polytheism and can even move past that to Gnosticism. To say it is "God," lends to confusion and is really no different than having the article before theos as well. So it most likely is qualitative but that, in essence, still says that the Word is God, just via his nature rather than equating the terms. (Again, most of the above is adapted from The Forgotten Trinity).

But more than that, such an argument completely ignores the 282 other times theos is used anarthrously in the NT, including 4 additional times in the first 18 verses of John 1 (all from the ESV):

Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Now, please tell me why any of these should not be translated simply as "God," as they appear above.

This completely does away with any argument that because the article isn't present in John 1:1c that it therefore cannot mean that the Word is deity.

 

[JLB]

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

OK, that's great! Every child should have the traits of their father.

However, that is not what he said.

How or why would anyone think that Jesus mother would have any traits of Jesus Father?

JLB

 

[Asyncritus]

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?

I don't understand this question and its relevance to the question I asked.

Is Mary the mother of God, or not?

 

[JLB]

I don't understand this question and its relevance to the question I asked.

Is Mary the mother of God, or not?

Mary is the womb that the man Jesus Christ was formed in.

She was a Virgin when she gave birth to Christ.

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.1 John 5:6


Because her eggs were not involved, technically she was not His mother in a sense of a natural child birth, but His mother in the sense she nursed Him.


JLB

 

[rrowell]

I don't understand this question and its relevance to the question I asked.

Is Mary the mother of God, or not?

I don't understand what your question has to do with the trinity?

So you agree Jesus was a God before he became a man, you say you believe God the Father was before Jesus became a man...

What is exactly your problem with the triune? the Holy Spirit?

 

[Free]

Because her eggs were not involved, technically she was not His mother in a sense of a natural child birth, but His mother in the sense she nursed Him.

That is going beyond what Scripture states as it says nothing about Mary's eggs. However, there is no reason to not believe that God used Mary's eggs, as is the normal course for humans.

 

[Asyncritus]

Mary is the womb that the man Jesus Christ was formed in.

She was a Virgin when she gave birth to Christ.

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.1 John 5:6

Because her eggs were not involved, technically she was not His mother in a sense of a natural child birth, but His mother in the sense she nursed Him.

JLB

This is getting silly, JLB.

Luke 1 says she CONCEIVED Him. That, I believe, involves eggs - one at any rate.

But you cannot support that fact - because if He pre-existed, then there is no way that a conception took place. Implantation, transfer or something else, besides conception.

Since the word 'conceived' is used by Luke, a doctor, then that simple fact means that He did not pre-exist.

I am deliberately forcing this question about Mary being the mother of God on you all.

It is the logical consequence of the doctrine of the trinity.

If you do not think she was the mother of God, then you automatically reject the doctrine of the trinity.

So to prarphrase Jesus: No man can serve two doctrines which are mutually contradictory.

Choose you this day whom ye shall serve!

 

[Free]

This is getting silly, JLB.

Luke 1 says she CONCEIVED Him. That, I believe, involves eggs - one at any rate.

But you cannot support that fact - because if He pre-existed, then there is no way that a conception took place. Implantation, transfer or something else, besides conception.

Since the word 'conceived' is used by Luke, a doctor, then that simple fact means that He did not pre-exist.

I am deliberately forcing this question about Mary being the mother of God on you all.

It is the logical consequence of the doctrine of the trinity.

If you do not think she was the mother of God, then you automatically reject the doctrine of the trinity.

So to prarphrase Jesus: No man can serve two doctrines which are mutually contradictory.

Choose you this day whom ye shall serve!

Silly is right. This is not at all an argument against the Trinity. The error of such arguments has been shown so you would do well to stop using them, especially as a means to avoid the stronger arguments.

 

[WIP]

Doesn't it seem possible that Jesus, the man, was born and died but Jesus, one with God, always was and always will be?

 

[teddy trueblood]

Doesn't it seem possible that Jesus, the man, was born and died but
Jesus, one with God, always was and always will be?

Would that mean that his human nature died, but his 'God-nature' continued on in heaven? In other words, that upon his resurrection to heaven he was equally God, but no longer human?

 

[JLB]

This is getting silly, JLB.

Luke 1 says she CONCEIVED Him. That, I believe, involves eggs - one at any rate.

But you cannot support that fact - because if He pre-existed, then there is no way that a conception took place. Implantation, transfer or something else, besides conception.

Since the word 'conceived' is used by Luke, a doctor, then that simple fact means that He did not pre-exist.

I am deliberately forcing this question about Mary being the mother of God on you all.

It is the logical consequence of the doctrine of the trinity.

If you do not think she was the mother of God, then you automatically reject the doctrine of the trinity.

So to prarphrase Jesus: No man can serve two doctrines which are mutually contradictory.

Choose you this day whom ye shall serve!

I choose to serve God, and believe His Word, not yours.


But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 1:20


21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Luke 2:21


According to Matthew 1:20

...before He was conceived [of the Holy Spirit] in the womb.


I notice you talk alot, with hum reasoning, but you don't use scripture.

You might "tag" something you say with a scripture "reference", but not scripture itself.

Since the word 'conceived' is used by Luke, a doctor, then that simple fact means that He did not pre-exist.

The scripture is clear, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit, not conceived of Mary.

Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was born!

Here is the scripture to prove it -

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.

Since Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was born, what was conceived in her was not conceived by her, but by the Holy Spirit!


JLB

 

[WIP]

Would that mean that his human nature died, but his 'God-nature' continued on in heaven? In other words, that upon his resurrection to heaven he was equally God, but no longer human?

Good follow-up question. I don't know. Guess I've got some studying to do.

 

[Free]

In other words, that upon his resurrection to heaven he was equally God, but no longer human?

There is every reason to believe that he is still the God-man, truly God and truly man.

 

[Webb]

Regarding the conception of Mary, does the Holy Spirit have sperm?

 

[JLB]

Regarding the conception of Mary, does the Holy Spirit have sperm?

Is there a scripture that associates the word conceived with a man!

I believe conceive would be associated with the activity of a woman.

Begot would be the activity of a man.

I don't believe a man conceives, but rather the woman.


JLB

 

[Free]

Regarding the conception of Mary, does the Holy Spirit have sperm?

I really don't think it was any different than any other miracle/creative act of God. No sperm necessary.

 

[teddy trueblood]

There is every reason to believe that he is still the God-man, truly God and truly man.

How about giving some of those "every reasons."

I don't believe there is a scripture telling us that any man resurrected to heaven will still be a man.

 

[Free]

There is every reason to believe that he is still the God-man, truly God and truly man.

How about giving some of those "every reasons."

I don't believe there is a scripture telling us that any man resurrected to heaven will still be a man.

The Bible cannot be more clear that Jesus was very literally physically raised from the dead. It is also clear that he returned to the Father in the state that he was raised.

Everyone raised at the end of all things will have a glorified physical body, the same as Christ. So, yes, all believers in the next age will still be human. That's all I'll say about that since it isn't the topic.

 

[Asyncritus]

There is every reason to believe that he is still the God-man, truly God and truly man.

There is every reason to believe He is a man: the term God-man does not occur anywhere in scripture, expressly or by implication.

Here's the good reason:

1 Tim.2.5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Note the present tense.

Here's another:

Lk 24.38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

What more do you need?