Your thoughts on the Trinity?

[Vic C.]

This doesn't suggest interjecting an indefinite article into the Greek where it doesn't exist. The Greek reader would most likely understand the gist of John's message and read it into the context accordingly.

No, all this shows is that the translators were bound to the grammatical rules of the Sahidic Coptic language when translating. They were bound to add an "a". The literal translation of the Greek into English reads like this:

in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word

So if god was the word then logically the Word was God. Reversing God and Word is acceptable here; the KJV got it right. There's no escaping even a little contextual consideration if one is to properly translate. Robert Young understood this and translated it in much the same way. Rotherham translated it this way:

(Rotherham) John 1:1 Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.

But when one denies the Deity of Jesus and denies the Biblical concept of a Triune God, it's easy to understand how this could be misinterpreted.

 

[Gabe]

A friendly reminder for all who participate in this thread, as stated previously by Stovebolts in post #2:

Note:
Any posts that refute the trinity with the intention of discrediting this basic and widely accepted Christian truth will be deleted and you will be given a warning.

 

[Paidion]

At John 1:18, the apostle John said that "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him." Many Bibles say "only-begotten Son". However, the wording of "only-begotten god" is accurate, for the oldest known Greek manuscripts of the book of John have this rendering, such Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) of about 200 C.E., Papyrus Bodmer 14,15 (P75), also of about 200 C.E., both being located at Geneva, Switzerland, the Vatican MS 1209 of the fourth century, located at Vatican City, Rome, as well as the Codex Ephraemi rescriptus of the fifth century, located at Paris, France. Thus, Jesus is "a god" but not "God Almighty".(Gen 17:1)

Why do you assume a lower-case "g" in the phrase "only-begotten God"? This denies the Deity of the Son. Second-century Christian writers didn't. They emphasized that Jesus was "the only-begotten God", while God the Father was unbegotten. Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son of God is the reflected brightness of [the Father's] glory and is the exact expression of His essence. That is the case since the Father begat Him as His first act.

Dogs beget dogs and the offspring is canine. Man begets man and the offspring is human. God begets God and the offspring is divine. However there are many canine offspring and many human offspring but ONLY ONE divine offspring.

Also, many Bibles have rendered John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."(King James Bible) However, Greek grammar and the context strongly indicates that it should be rendered as "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god ". Due to the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article, such as "a" or "an", has made some question the above rendering. But what if a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era could be found of John 1:1 ? That would help in settling the issue.

It is untrue that Greek grammar "strongly indicates" that it should be rendered "the Word was a god". That would be the case if the subjective completion had been placed AFTER the copula verb.
If John had meant "The Word was a god", then the Greek words would have been:

á½Â....λογοÂ...ἠν......θεοÂ
the..word...was a...god

But this is not what John wrote.

If John had meant that the Word was God the Father Himself (as Modalists affirm), then the Greek words would have been:

á½Â....λογοÂ...ἠν ...á½Â...θεοÂ
the..Word...was..the..God

Prefixing the word "θεοÂ" with the article "á½Â" (with no other modifiers) would indicate that God the Father is meant. But that is not what John wrote.

Here is what John actually wrote:

θεοÂ..ἠν.... á½Â...λογοÂ
God..was...the..Word

John placed the subjective completion BEFORE the copula verb!What did John mean? Did he mean that God the Father was the Word? No! If he had meant that, he would have prefixed the word "θεοÂ" with the article "á½Â". What then was his meaning? As a person who has studied Hellenistic Greek for several years and has even taught a self-devised beginner's course to adults, I am going to propose a suggested translation, and then justify it by reference to other similar constructions in the New Testament.

A very crude translation could be "The Word was God-stuff". However, this doesn't sound very reverent. So I suggest "The Word was Divinity" or perhaps "The Word was divine". He was divine because God begat Him before all ages as Another just like Himself! "God" or "Divinity" was the essence of the Word.

Let's look at two more instances in the New Testament in which a subjective completion without a modifier is placed BEFORE a copula verb. In I John 4:8 and also in I John 4:16, we find the phrase:

á½Â...θεοÂ.. ἀγαÀη..á¼ÂÃĀιν
the God..love......is

Here the subject is clearly the Father since the word "θεοÂ" is prefixed with the article. But notice the subjective completion "ἀγαÀη" occurs BEFORE the copula verb "á¼ÂÃĀιν". The correct translation is: "God is love". Love is the essence of God. This is analagous to saying in John 1:1 that Divinity is the essence of the Word.

One more example:

á½Â....λογοÂ..á½Â...........ÃοÂ....ἀληθια...á¼ÂÃĀιν
the..word the [one]..of you reality....is

Translation: "Your word is reality". God's word is reality. There is never falsehood or unreality in what God says. Once again, the subjective completion "ἀληθια" comes BEFORE the copula verb "á¼ÂÃĀιν". Reality is the essence of what God says.

Martin Luther, whatever else he may have been, had an excellent understanding of Greek. Concerning the phrase in John 1:1:

θεοÂ..ἠν.... á½Â...λογοÂ
God..was...the..Word

Luther expressed quite succinctly what I have attempted to relate about the word order. He said:

"The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism."

Sabellianism was a form of Modalism, that God is a single divine Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Today, Modalism is represented by the United Pentecostal Church as well as the various sects of the "Apostolic Church".

Arianism was and is thought by many to have been a position whereby the Son was a lesser god, and thus the translation "The word was a god". This position is represented today by Jehovah's Witnesses. The New World Translation actually renders the Greek phrase as "The word was a god."

 

[Cornelius]

I can see why people find it difficult to understand, and then again I cannot understand it . LOL

I think a major problem is that we still have the Roman Catholic teaching about the Trinity in most of the churches. I am NOT trying to open a discussion on this, I am just stating a simple fact, that anybody can check out for themselves. We believe, what they believe. The Reformation, was a Part-reformation and obviously did not touch on all the aspects. That would be impossible for the few who participated in it.

Obviously there is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We can see that in the Bible.
Are they really as we are being "taught" . I use that word "taught" , but in fact that is not the case, is it? It would be better to say " As we are being confused"

Confused we are. That is why threads like this run on all forums. Its a desperate cry for clarity ! The church is is need to understand the God that it is worshiping. Now that is a very sobering and very sad thought. Its like being on a boat and searching for the Captain and everybody gives tells you what he looks like, but you can never find him, because all descriptions differ.

I have already stated what I read in the Bible (without the doctrine of man added)

So let me rather ask this: We all know that God is not the God of confusion.
WHO is the one that causes confusion? (...............) (fill in the blank )

So who might just agree with me, that this confusion has its roots in the way that we want to PUSH our understanding into what we have been "taught." But now, our minds somehow cannot grasp this, and continuously keeps on "kicking us off" (Just like the wrong password will do on a computer )

I will also say this: ALL disagreement is the result of misunderstanding the Word. Sometimes on one side, but many times on all sides. We still do not have true understanding of ALL things.

So I would suggest this: Take whatever doctrine you have been taught, and lay it down at the feet of Jesus. Then say to Him: "Lord, this is so confusing. If I am confused because I am holding onto something that is incorrect, then please show me through Your Holy Spirit."

If you do this in faith He WILL answer. I guarantee this. God always answers us, when we are confused about His Word, because He WANTS us to understand.

There is a Father , and a Son and there is a Holy Spirit. They are just refusing to be pushed into a man made doctrine. That is why we cannot get a true "picture" in our minds.

in Christ
C

 

[Vic C.]

At the very least, one would have come up with a Binitarian God. Most who study the Bible are unaware of Binitarianism. It's a perfectly acceptable doctrine, because it preserves the Deity of Jesus and gives Him the place in the Godhead He deserves. The problem here is, what does one do with the Spirit; is the Spirit a person or not? That's an acceptabe question.

That is the main difference between the Binitarian and the Trinitarian.

When considering all the ways the Godhead manifests Himself and taken all scripture from cover to cover into account, it's easy to see both doctrines do have Biblical merit.

There is a Father , and a Son and there is a Holy Spirit. They are just refusing to be pushed into a man made doctrine. That is why we cannot get a true "picture" in our minds.

Yes there is, but maybe they don't want to be confined to a box which only contains the very limited understanding of man. To accuse those way back when, before the RCC, of devising a doctrine of the devil and to refuse to believe that they may have been much more Divinely inspired than any of us, seems to be a little judgmental and short-sided.

 

[stovebolts]

To accuse those way back when, before the RCC, of devising a doctrine of the devil and to refuse to believe that they may have been much more Divinely inspired than any of us

Just to add for those who may not be aware, it was at the council of Nicea in 325 AD where the first major dispute within the Church over the trinity was resolved. Most that were in attendance were not Western Roman Catholic, but rather, "Eastern Orthodox Catholic". The Coptic Catholics refused to define the trinity and thus, returned to Egypt while maintaining full acceptance by the Universal (Catholic) Church.

It wasn't until 1054 when the Catholic church officially split East from West over matters which included "Trinity"

 

[Cornelius]

At the very least, one would have come up with a Binitarian God. Most who study the Bible are unaware of Binitarianism. It's a perfectly acceptable doctrine, because it preserves the Deity of Jesus and gives Him the place in the Godhead He deserves. The problem here is, what does one do with the Spirit; is the Spirit a person or not? That's an acceptabe question.

That is the main difference between the Binitarian and the Trinitarian.

When considering all the ways the Godhead manifests Himself and taken all scripture from cover to cover into account, it's easy to see both doctrines do have Biblical merit.

There is a Father , and a Son and there is a Holy Spirit. They are just refusing to be pushed into a man made doctrine. That is why we cannot get a true "picture" in our minds.

Yes there is, but maybe they don't want to be confined to a box which only contains the very limited understanding of man. To accuse those way back when, before the RCC, of devising a doctrine of the devil and to refuse to believe that they may have been much more Divinely inspired than any of us, seems to be a little judgmental and short-sided.

LOL I never said anything about a "doctrine of the devil" In reality I think this is a minor issue, that would not influence salvation at all. Its just a very understandable misunderstanding (if that is not an oxymoron, then I do not know what is ! )

...........................

Allow me to stir the already muddy water : But sometimes the stirring of the water brings healing !

Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (That spirit is called "Christ")
The Holy Spirit cannot cry "Abba Father" because that is the Spirit OF the Father. The Spirit of the Father cannot cry out "Father" to Itself..so it HAS to be the Spirit of the Son. (that spirit is called "Christ" and He dwells in you and me)

In this verse we have BOTH Spirits, mentioned in one: The Holy Spirit (Spirit of God/Father) and the Spirit of Christ (without which we are none of His)

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.



HERE is the Spirit of the FatherThe Holy Spirit)

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

(Notice, here it is not the Spirit of the Son, but the Spirit of the Father that speaks through us)

Now there watch: The Holy Spirit (which we see is the Spirit of the Father (Mat 10:20 ) proceedeth from the Father and Jesus , the Word of God , also came forth from the Father.


Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,he shall bear witness of me:


Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.

So according to Scripture, without adding or taking away, we see that God the Father indeed has His OWN Spirit (which is HOLY) thus: HOLY Spirit, and that we also have the Spirit of His SON (called Christ) in us.

So the Bible seems to differ slightly from what we believe.At the end it really boils down to believing what we read, or believing what we are told to believe.

C

 

[stovebolts]

C,

Would you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or would you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

 

[Cornelius]

C,

Would you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or would you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son?

I can only say what I see written I really do not have a personal opinion about it, but this is what the Bible says about it:

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,he shall bear witness of me:
(I cannot find a scripture that says the Holy Spirit also proceeded from Jesus )

......................................

Jesus Himself also came forth out of the Father. Him being the Word, its easy to understand.God spoke and Jesus came forth into being.

Joh 8:42 ....... for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.
Jesus did not "come of Himself" but God the Father sent Him.

They are ONE in everything , but they are not co-existent, co-eternal. The Bible clearly teaches there was a "time before time" (time in the Bible starts only at a place called "The beginning" )

Before "the Beginning" was eternal past (which of course has NO beginning )

The Father is invisible......Jesus is visible.
Speaking of Jesus:.....Col 1:15 who is the image (visible) of the invisible God,(God the Father ) the firstborn of all creation;

Firstborn, means that there is a specific spot in time, where Jesus was born. That was when He came forth from the Father. The neat thing is , that Jesus has always been IN the Father , throughout eternity past, but then, at one time (the Beginning) He actually was "born".

Its all in the Bible, we are sometimes just a bit reluctant to believe certain things, because we think our whole faith-thing will drop like a tower of bricks if we to be found wrong in one thing LOL

I like wrong, because then hopefully there is a "right" that follows the "wrong".

C

 

[Cornelius]

I do not want to upset people and I know that some really get upset if one says that Jesus was born of God the Father at a certain time.Its just that, that is what the Bible says, and there is really no other way to say this.Being "born"(first) obviously implies that there is a time before one gets to be born. Nature itself shows us this is true.That is why God used the word "firstborn". He could have said: "First and only co-existent" but He did not.

C

 

[Ret]

A couple text on Jesus Christ before the existence of this world....R

John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had
with You before the world was. NASU

Prov 8:29...When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him, NASU

 

[Cornelius]

A couple text on Jesus Christ before the existence of this world....R

John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had
with You before the world was. NASU

Prov 8:29...When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him, NASU

Amen, these are good "time" scriptures. We can combine them with others.

Rev 13:8 ........the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Here is some more of Proverbs 8, where Ret quoted from:

Pro 8:22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was.

Here Jesus (Wisdom) is telling us when He was "set up" (came forth) "from the beginning"

Eternity has no beginning and no end. Anybody that does not agree that this is so, must go back to school LOL

Eternity past has no starting point, no beginning, and yet the Bible tells us that somewhere in our past, TIME came into being. Somewhere God indeed created "a beginning". That was the "beginning of time" . Before this moment, Jesus says, that He was not yet "set up" (to use His own words) He says, He was "set up" .....in the ......beginning.

This goes against what we have been taught and yet this is what the Bible says.I have not told you anything that you cannot read for yourself.

 

[Cornelius]

It takes just a little concentration to understand it:

If eternity has no beginning and no end (scientific fact ) then where does Jesus fit in when He says:

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, They are come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end
When or where is this beginning and when is the "end" in eternity ?

Look at what happens in "the end" (that is when time stops to exist and we are about to enter eternity with God...throw your watches away, they will be useless , because time will not be anymore, after the END )


1Co 15:28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

<--- eternity past..........................beginning of time, Jesus comes forth from the Father (creation of the world....history....until all things are subjected to Jesus, then Jesus Himself gets subjected to God the Father, that ALL THINGS be subjected unto God the Father. Now God is ALL IN ALL...time stops, because the job is done. Jesus returns into the Father....................................eternity future starts ------>

Check it out, it is what it written.

 

[Ret]

Eternity past has no starting point, no beginning, and yet the Bible tells us that somewhere in our past, TIME came into being. Somewhere God indeed created "a beginning". That was the "beginning of time" . Before this moment, Jesus says, that He was not yet "set up" (to use His own words) He says, He was "set up" .....in the ......beginning.

This goes against what we have been taught and yet this is what the Bible says.I have not told you anything that you cannot read for yourself.

A quick moment to share a thought...Time, wrath, and law, as we have come to know the creation of God in this earth, are all connected. When time ceases to exist, so does wrath and law-as given in the beginning of the creation of this planet. I do believe this planet, is different from the other creations of God in the cosmos. (If this of off-topic, let it rest)

Isa 28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. KJV

 

[oneisgod]

I have a very difficult time understanding one God in the form of three persons in the sense of who is being spoken of:

If someone says "God" or "the Lord" or "the Lord God", my first thought is "which person of the Trinity are they referring to?" Or are they just referring to God without any specific person in mind?

Also, with most emphasis on the Lord Jesus in preaching, discussions, etc., why aren't the Father and the Holy Spirit emphasized more? For example, I haven't heard too many songs sung about the Holy Spirit.

Some might say I am promoting the doctrine of three Gods-- NO I am not!

Plus, I AM NOT interested in a Trinity vs Oneness debate, either!

I can't understand the Trinity doctrine ( it sounds like a person is saying three Gods exist, which is not true), but I also can't understand modalism, either.

Thoughts?

What Jesus said at helps:-

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

God is just one not three, or two just "one."

 

[Free]

What Jesus said at helps:-

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

God is just one not three, or two just "one."

One verse does not an argument make. Even Paul refers to Jesus as Lord.

 

[Paidion]

I agree with a lot of what you posted, Cornelius. But I disagree on your concept of "eternity". I agree that the Son was begotten as an act of the Father before all ages. But if you are right, then there was "a time at which the Son of God did not exist." That was one of the mistakes of the Arians. The other was that the Son was begotten "out of nothing".

This is what I understand the early Christians to believe.

1. The Son was begotten "before all ages" as an act of God. But He wasn't begotten "out of nothing". Rather, He had His origin in the Father Himself. Justin Martyr described this begetting as analogous to lighting a small fire from a larger one. He said the larger fire becomes no less by lighting the smaller one, and the smaller one is of the same substance as the larger. Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I." This doesn't mean that the Father was any more divine that the Son, but that He had a higher position. So they are of the same essence, but differ in position. One could say there is an analogy in marriage. Scripturally, a husband is to be the leader, and the wife should choose to follow. But the wife is no less human than her husband. Again, the difference is only in God-given position.

2. There was a real beginning of time. Ithink the phrase "in the beginning" as found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 refers to the beginning of time. The idea of there being any events before the beginning of time is self-contradictory. There was no "before". God was simply there and His first act was the begetting of His Son. That event marked the beginning of time. For time doesn't exist unless there are events. So there was no "time" at which the Son did not exist. For there was no time before the Son was begotten.

I know the concept of time having a real beginning is difficult to understand. But the concept of there being an infinite regression of time into the past is impossible to understand.

3. The Holy Spirit is neither a third person nor a mere force. The Holy Spirit is indeed personal. The Spirit is the very Persons of the Father and the Son. Jesus said that He and the Father would make their dwelling with the disciples. How would they do it? --- through their Spirit. In some sense, the Father dwells in Heaven with the Son at His right hand. But they can extend their personalities anywhere in the universe by means of their Spirit. Though the Father and the Son are two different divine Individuals, they share the same Spirit. That's how unified the Father and the Son are.

When Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) was discussing spiritual matters with Trypho, a Jew, they both made reference to the Holy Spirit. Clearly Trypho didn't have in mind another divine Personality, and neither did Justin. However, Justin had spent a great deal of time trying to convince Trypho that there is a second divine Individual who may properly be called "God", another besides the Father, namely Christ.

Now here is the interesting matter. At one point, Justin asked, "Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called 'Lord' and 'God' in the scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Christ, who by so many scriptures was proved to you to have become man?"

Trypho replied, "How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?

Now if Justin had believed that the Holy Spirit was a Third Person, this would have been the ripe moment to introduce that belief. Instead, Justin said, "I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago."
This exchange can be found in the Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 68.

To sum up my own position as I understand the Scriptures and the early Christians:

1. There is one God, whom Jesus addressed as "the only true God"
2. The one true God begat a Son as His first act. That Son is also fully divine. He was the only-begotten Son of God.
3. The Son is equally divine, but secondary in position.
4. The Father and the Son can extend their personalities anywhere in the universe. That extension is their Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not an impersonal force, but the very Persons of the Father and the Son.

 

[oneisgod]

What Jesus said at helps:-

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

God is just one not three, or two just "one."

One verse does not an argument make. Even Paul refers to Jesus as Lord.

True, but to the Glory of God not his own:-

Philippians 2:11
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. "

who is Gerater than he is.

It does not say the Jesus is God but that Jesus like many other can be given the title of respect "lord".

 

[oneisgod]

What Jesus said at helps:-

Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

God is just one not three, or two just "one."

One verse does not an argument make. Even Paul refers to Jesus as Lord.

Then to be more accurate:-

Mark 12:29-30
Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’

Jesus quoted from:-

Deuteronomy 6:5
And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.

 

[Free]

True, but to the Glory of God not his own:-

Philippians 2:11
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. "

who is Gerater than he is.

It does not say the Jesus is God but that Jesus like many other can be given the title of respect "lord".

Context is everything. Almost any verse, taken out of context, can be made to say something it doesn't, at worst, and at best doesn't give a full picture.

In this case, yes, the title 'lord' can be used of many. But, you would agree, means something different in regards to God. In the same way, when put together with all that Scripture reveals about Jesus, he is Lord, in the same way that the Father is Lord.

Then to be more accurate:-

Mark 12:29-30
Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’

Jesus quoted from:-

Deuteronomy 6:5
And you must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force.

The passage in Deut, just as it is quoted in Mark, is merely a statement of monotheism. Nothing less, nothing more. And trinitarianism is in full agreement with this.

Personally, I agree with Thomas and refer to Jesus as "my Lord and my God." If Jesus isn't truly God, then there is no salvation, for anyone.