There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[GodsGrace]

You claim what I’m saying is nonsensical, because you can’t hear what I’m saying. I know the Trinitarian argument, I’ve listened, I’ve studied, I know all the text.
iI also know it’s incomprehensible, as Trinitarian scholars admit.

Do you think you have it in you to at least listen to what I’m saying so that you may at least understand the Unitarian view?

Again, I know the orthodox doctrine of Trinity and can tell anyone what it is.
Where you fail is to look at the Unitarian view, in full, and therefore can tell no one what it is.

If you had been listening, in order to learn, then you would have already knew what It means to me that “the Word was with God”

I’m not going to explain over and over again to someone who,fails to comprehend.

You're a new member here and this is a friendly warning.

You're last 2 paragraphs are breaking TOS rules to which you agreed when joining. They are considered to be flaming and can easily cause an argument to ensue.

You are here to discuss. Others are not obligated to accept your POV.

Please familiarize yourself with the TOS.
Thanks.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD. USE TALK WITH STAFF IF NECESSARY.

 

[Free]

You claim what I’m saying is nonsensical, because you can’t hear what I’m saying. I know the Trinitarian argument, I’ve listened, I’ve studied, I know all the text.
iI also know it’s incomprehensible, as Trinitarian scholars admit.

Do you think you have it in you to at least listen to what I’m saying so that you may at least understand the Unitarian view?

Again, I know the orthodox doctrine of Trinity and can tell anyone what it is.
Where you fail is to look at the Unitarian view, in full, and therefore can tell no one what it is.

If you had been listening, in order to learn, then you would have already knew what It means to me that “the Word was with God”

I’m not going to explain over and over again to someone who fail to comprehend what I’ve said.

If you understand what I’ve been explaining on John 1:1 then tell me.

I'm claiming what you said is nonsensical because it is self-contradictory--no one can ever be said to be with someone else and also be that someone else. Like C. S. Lewis said, nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God (in reference to the argument about God making a rock to heavy for him to lift).

I heard you perfectly well and am certain I understood what you said, insofar as it can be said to be understandable, but it seems you may not really listening to what John said. John's choice of grammar in John 1:1-2 absolutely rules out the Father being the Word or vice versa. His whole point was to keep the Word eternally distinct from God, in some way, yet show that the Word was also God in nature, while maintaining monotheism.

Looking at what else you previously said:

'The scripture says the Word is a name of Jesus. “His name is called the Word of God”.
Therefore, the Word that was with God, is a name called the Word. And the name was with God. And that name was God.'

How does that make sense? "Word" is a name. "Jesus" is also a name. What you're essentially saying is that "'the Word that was with God, is a name called a name. And the name was with God. And that name was God'." First, how can it ever be said that a name is with someone? Second, what could it possibly mean that "a name was a name"? Third, how could it ever be said that a name "was God"?

A person is in relationship with other persons and persons have names; a name isn't in relationship with persons. The Word was a person in close, intimate relationship with God, and who was God in nature. The Word then "became flesh and dwelt among us" in the person of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is both truly God (the Word) and truly man, and is why he has the names Jesus and The Word of God.

 

[LeviR]

I'm claiming what you said is nonsensical because it is self-contradictory--no one can ever be said to be with someone else and also be that someone else. Like C. S. Lewis said, nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God (in reference to the argument about God making a rock to heavy for him to lift).

I heard you perfectly well and am certain I understood what you said, insofar as it can be said to be understandable, but it seems you may not really listening to what John said. John's choice of grammar in John 1:1-2 absolutely rules out the Father being the Word or vice versa. His whole point was to keep the Word eternally distinct from God, in some way, yet show that the Word was also God in nature, while maintaining monotheism.

When God speaks, it is done. The acting principle by which it is done is His Spirit.

 

[Free]

When God speaks, it is done. The acting principle by which it is done is His Spirit.

Okay. But, what does that have to do with anything that we've been discussing?

 

[Runningman]

Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?

John 6
Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Not at all. I have been saying all along that Jesus taught he is the Son of Man from heaven. Refers to being a human. Didn't he ascend to heaven as a fully resurrected man?

John 3
13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

 

[LeviR]

Okay. But, what does that have to do with anything that we've been discussing?

when John says, “The Word was God” it refers to a name by which the Father was called.
When Jesus’ name is “called the Word of God”, it means Jesus has come in the name of the Father.
A name by which the Father was known, is a name which also Jesus can be known.
Jesus did not have to preexist to be given that name.
To say the Word was with the Father(God) simply means that the Word comes from God(Father)

 

[Free]

when John says, “The Word was God” it refers to a name by which the Father was called.

Where is the Father ever called the Word? Not by John because, as I pointed out, his grammar makes that an impossibility.

When Jesus’ name is “called the Word of God”, it means Jesus has come in the name of the Father.

Where is a person ever said to be with themself in an intimate, interpersonal relationship?

A name by which the Father was known, is a name which also Jesus can be known.

Again, where is the Father ever called "the Word" or "The Word of God"?

Jesus did not have to preexist to be given that name.

You need to be more clear. Do you mean Jesus or the Son? Jesus clearly didn't preexist, but the Son did, also known as the Word.

Your argument is with John and what he wrote. That is what you need to address.

 

[Free]

Not at all. I have been saying all along that Jesus taught he is the Son of Man from heaven. Refers to being a human. Didn't he ascend to heaven as a fully resurrected man?

John 3
13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Why are you ignoring the obvious? You state yourself that "Jesus taught he is the Son of Man from heaven." That can only mean Jesus thought he was from heaven. How can it mean he isn't actually from heaven, since you deny his preexistence?

 

[Runningman]

Why are you ignoring the obvious? You state yourself that "Jesus taught he is the Son of Man from heaven." That can only mean Jesus thought he was from heaven. How can it mean he isn't actually from heaven, since you deny his preexistence?

No problem. Jesus was saying that at some point (after his birth) he, the Son of Man, ascended up to heaven. How and where? They didn't record it or write about it, but apparently Jesus went to heaven at some point and then descended back down again. Doesn't require a pre-existence.

 

[LeviR]

Where is the Father ever called the Word? Not by John because, as I pointed out, his grammar makes that an impossibility.


Where is a person ever said to be with themself in an intimate, interpersonal relationship?


Again, where is the Father ever called "the Word" or "The Word of God"?


You need to be more clear. Do you mean Jesus or the Son? Jesus clearly didn't preexist, but the Son did, also known as the Word.

Your argument is with John and what he wrote. That is what you need to address.

John’s grammar does not make it an impossibility. Thats only your opinion.
The word is said to be with God because it exists with Him and proceeds from Him. It refers to a spoken word.
The Father is called the Word of God when he, by His Word came to them(His people).
It is said “the word of the Lord came” to so and so. And the reply of the word coming is usually an acknowledgement that the word which came was the Lord.
The reply to the word coming is something like “LORD, what will you do” or something like that.

 

[LeviR]

John’s grammar does not make it an impossibility. Thats only your opinion.
The word is said to be with God because it exists with Him and proceeds from Him. It refers to a spoken word.
The Father is called the Word of God when he, by His Word came to them(His people).
It is said “the word of the Lord came” to so and so. And the reply of the word coming is usually an acknowledgement that the word which came was the Lord.
The reply to the word coming is something like “LORD, what will you do” or something like that.

With these facts we can clearly see the “the word of the LORD” or “the word of God” was with God, as His word existed with Him and proceeds from Him.
And also, “the word was God” because it was acknowledged by those to whom the Word came as being “LORD”.

Therefore, if the word exists with God and comes from God and is called God, we know it’s a name of God.
And Jesus was simply given that name.
No preexistence necessary.

 

[LeviR]

With these facts we can clearly see the “the word of the LORD” or “the word of God” was with God, as His word existed with Him and proceeds from Him.
And also, “the word was God” because it was acknowledged by those to whom the Word came as being “LORD”.

Therefore, if the word exists with God and comes from God and is called God, we know it’s a name of God.
And Jesus was simply given that name.
No preexistence necessary.

Jesus himself further explains this idea when he said that those to whom the word of God came were called God.

 

[Free]

No problem. Jesus was saying that at some point (after his birth) he, the Son of Man, ascended up to heaven. How and where? They didn't record it or write about it, but apparently Jesus went to heaven at some point and then descended back down again. Doesn't require a pre-existence.

Is that what Jesus is saying? We shouldn't be basing doctrine on something that isn't stated anywhere. Do you know where "Son of Man" comes from?

We should be basing our doctrine on what is clearly stated. Jesus clearly stated that he came from heaven, more than once. His disciples understood him to be saying that he came from heaven. John stated that the Word was already in existence when the beginning began, was with God, and was God in nature, and then "became [entered into existence at a point in time] flesh and dwelt among us." John said that when Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh, he saw the glory of Jesus (as the Son). Jesus said he shared in the Father's glory before the foundation of the world. Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God.

Again, from the beginning of John's gospel right through to the end, there are numerous explicit and implicit statements that Jesus is more than just human, that he is truly God in human flesh.

 

[LeviR]

Anyone who will acknowledge that all things were created by the word of God through His Spirit. Can also see that if Jesus is called the word of God, as a name by which he is given, then all things can be said to have also been created by Jesus.
By being given that name, all things that pertain to it apply to whom it is given.

 

[Free]

John’s grammar does not make it an impossibility. Thats only your opinion.

No, John's grammar makes it an impossibility. If it's just my opinion, then, please, address the post where I gave John's grammar and show where it is wrong. Until you do so, that's just your opinion.

The word is said to be with God because it exists with Him and proceeds from Him.

Yes, exactly, apart from the fact that spoken words are never said to "exist with" a person.

It refers to a spoken word.

No, it doesn't. Apart from being to shallow a definition of logos, again, when is a person's "spoken word" ever said to be in intimate relationship with that person?

The Father is called the Word of God when he, by His Word came to them(His people).

Where, chapter and verse, is the Father ever called "the Word of God"? Where?

It is said “the word of the Lord came” to so and so. And the reply of the word coming is usually an acknowledgement that the word which came was the Lord.
The reply to the word coming is something like “LORD, what will you do” or something like that.

Where does "the word of the Lord" ever mean "the Lord"? Just one verse. You're conflating two different meanings.

With these facts we can clearly see the “the word of the LORD” or “the word of God” was with God, as His word existed with Him and proceeds from Him.

Again, you're conflating two different uses of logos

And also, “the word was God” because it was acknowledged by those to whom the Word came as being “LORD”.

No, "the Word was God" means that "the Word was God in nature." You're not paying attention to the grammar.

Therefore, if the word exists with God and comes from God and is called God, we know it’s a name of God.

No one's words are identified as the person. And, again, no one's words are in intimate, personal relationship with that person.

And Jesus was simply given that name.

Because he is the person of the Word become flesh. That is John's whole point.

No preexistence necessary.

Whether or not preexistence is necessary is not relevant to the fact of the Son's preexistence as the Word.

Jesus himself further explains this idea when he said that those to whom the word of God came were called God.

Where? You make a lot of claims but don't provide any proof.

 

[LeviR]

No, John's grammar makes it an impossibility. If it's just my opinion, then, please, address the post where I gave John's grammar and show where it is wrong. Until you do so, that's just your opinion.


Yes, exactly, apart from the fact that spoken words are never said to "exist with" a person.


No, it doesn't. Apart from being to shallow a definition of logos, again, when is a person's "spoken word" ever said to be in intimate relationship with that person?


Where, chapter and verse, is the Father ever called "the Word of God"? Where?


Where does "the word of the Lord" ever mean "the Lord"? Just one verse. You're conflating two different meanings.


Again, you're conflating two different uses of logos


No, "the Word was God" means that "the Word was God in nature." You're not paying attention to the grammar.


No one's words are identified as the person. And, again, no one's words are in intimate, personal relationship with that person.


Because he is the person of the Word become flesh. That is John's whole point.


Whether or not preexistence is necessary is not relevant to the fact of the Son's preexistence as the Word.


Where? You make a lot of claims but don't provide any proof.

Trinitarians often claim that Logos does not mean something spoken.
However, anyone who examines every instance of Logos will know that that is exactly what it means. Check your lexicons.

 

[LeviR]

To me, the son of God and Jesus the Messiah are the same person.
If his NAME is called the Word of God, and he IS God,

Then why are some arguing that the Word is not a name of God?
Strange indeed.

The Word IS a name of God. And Jesus is given that name.

Truth always finds its way out.

 

[LeviR]

Where does Word mean the nature of God?
It most certainly does NOT mean that.
Check your Bible.

 

[Free]

Trinitarians often claim that Logos does not mean something spoken.
However, anyone who examines every instance of Logos will know that that is exactly what it means. Check your lexicons.

I said that is a shallow meaning; I didn't say it doesn't mean something spoken. It has many meanings that are relevant.

From Strong's:

λόγος
logos

From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

From New American Standard Exhaustive Concordence:

logos; from G3004; a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech: — account (7), account *(1), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint (1), exhortation *(1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length *(1), matter (4), matters (1), message (10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said (1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1), teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what *(1), word (179), words (61).

From Thayer:

Thayer Definition:
1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
1b) what someone has said
1b1) a word
1b2) the sayings of God
1b3) decree, mandate or order
1b4) of the moral precepts given by God
1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
1c) discourse
1c1) the act of speaking, speech
1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
1c3) a kind or style of speaking
1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
1d) doctrine, teaching
1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
2) its use as respect to the MIND alone
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score
2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
2e1) reason would
2f) reason, cause, ground
3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

According to Vern Poythress, "logos in Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration.
The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are most pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking." (Logic, p. 70)

"So logic or reason is an aspect of God's speaking. We can see this is true when God created the world in Genesis 1. His speech includes logical self-consistency and rationality. The same truth holds supremely for the eternal Word of God who is God. This eternal Word is the eternal speech of God. He is therefore also the eternal logic or reason of God, as an aspect of God's speech.

Logic, as we said, is personal. Now it becomes more evident why it is personal. It is not only personal, it is a person, namely, the Word of God. But we should be careful to underline the fact that this person, the second person of the Trinity, is much richer than our human conceptions, either of logic or of reason or of language as a whole." (Logic, p. 71)


And, again, when is a person's "spoken word" ever said to be in intimate relationship with that person? Why do you keep avoiding this question?

To me, the son of God and Jesus the Messiah are the same person.

Yes, of course they are.

If his NAME is called the Word of God, and he IS God,

Then why are some arguing that the Word is not a name of God?
Strange indeed.

No. If God is tri-personal, then the Word is the name of one person. It would be misleading then to say that the Word would be the name of God. YHWH is the name of God, which applies to all three persons, but not the Word.

The Word IS a name of God. And Jesus is given that name.

Yes, because Jesus is the Word, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, in human flesh, begin both truly man and truly God.

Truth always finds its way out.

It does. I've been posting about for a long time now.

Where does Word mean the nature of God?
It most certainly does NOT mean that.
Check your Bible.

I have never stated that. Please go back and read what I have written. I gave the grammatical reasons why "the Word was God" can only mean that the Word was in nature God.

Why do you continue to avoid addressing the Greek grammar I posted? (Not that you're alone there.) You keep just giving your opinions on what things mean or don't mean but don't provide any evidence.

 

[LeviR]

I said that is a shallow meaning; I didn't say it doesn't mean something spoken. It has many meanings that are relevant.

From Strong's:

λόγος
logos

From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

From New American Standard Exhaustive Concordence:

logos; from G3004; a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech: — account (7), account *(1), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint (1), exhortation *(1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length *(1), matter (4), matters (1), message (10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said (1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1), teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what *(1), word (179), words (61).

From Thayer:

Thayer Definition:
1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
1b) what someone has said
1b1) a word
1b2) the sayings of God
1b3) decree, mandate or order
1b4) of the moral precepts given by God
1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
1c) discourse
1c1) the act of speaking, speech
1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
1c3) a kind or style of speaking
1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
1d) doctrine, teaching
1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
2) its use as respect to the MIND alone
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score
2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
2e1) reason would
2f) reason, cause, ground
3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

According to Vern Poythress, "logos in Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration.
The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are most pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking." (Logic, p. 70)

"So logic or reason is an aspect of God's speaking. We can see this is true when God created the world in Genesis 1. His speech includes logical self-consistency and rationality. The same truth holds supremely for the eternal Word of God who is God. This eternal Word is the eternal speech of God. He is therefore also the eternal logic or reason of God, as an aspect of God's speech.

Logic, as we said, is personal. Now it becomes more evident why it is personal. It is not only personal, it is a person, namely, the Word of God. But we should be careful to underline the fact that this person, the second person of the Trinity, is much richer than our human conceptions, either of logic or of reason or of language as a whole." (Logic, p. 71)


And, again, when is a person's "spoken word" ever said to be in intimate relationship with that person? Why do you keep avoiding this question?


Yes, of course they are.


No. If God is tri-personal, then the Word is the name of one person. It would be misleading then to say that the Word would be the name of God. YHWH is the name of God, which applies to all three persons, but not the Word.


Yes, because Jesus is the Word, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, in human flesh, begin both truly man and truly God.


It does. I've been posting about for a long time now.


I have never stated that. Please go back and read what I have written. I gave the grammatical reasons why "the Word was God" can only mean that the Word was in nature God.

Why do you continue to avoid addressing the Greek grammar I posted? (Not that you're alone there.) You keep just giving your opinions on what things mean or don't mean but don't provide any evidence.

The word in nature is not God because the word was made mortal flesh. Mortal flesh is not the nature of God.