Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[synergy]

We are even now ---- There were triads and there were single gods.

I agree. That portion of @Alter2Ego's OP gets us nowhere, typical of non-Trinitarians.

NOPE, the prologue of John does not teach that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Let's look more closely at John 1:13 that states believers are "born...of God". That phrase is explained elsewhere in Scripture as the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus interprets this new birth in John 3:5–8 as being “born of water and the Spirit,” equating birth “from above” with birth by the Spirit, who sovereignly gives life as God Himself. These verses are not just trivial references to the fact that God is Spirit.

The piling up of negations in John 1:13 rules out everything except for a distinct divine sovereign agent who actually effects the believers' birth. In Scripture, whenever divine life is given, the agent is consistently the sovereign Spirit (Gen 1:2; Job 33:4; Ezek 37:14). Also, John 3:5–8 Jesus explicitly defines being “born of God” as being “born of the Spirit,” grounding regeneration in the Spirit’s sovereign action—“the wind blows where it wishes.” This is not a statement about God’s Spirit nature, but about the Holy Spirit's personal, his own free-will causation, which is the Spirit's attribute as God. Furthermore, John consistently attributes life-giving to the Spirit as a divine prerogative: “It is the Spirit who gives life” (John 6:63), a statement that would be blasphemous if the Spirit were anything less than fully God. Regeneration requires an agent, and John repeatedly identifies that agent as the Holy Spirit. Therefore, John 1:13 refers to the Holy Spirit sovereignly giving new life as God Himself, not to the trivial observation that God is spirit. Therefore, “born of God” in John 1:13 is not some unitarian personified expression but the Spirit’s sovereign regenerating work.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Capbook:

The word Godhead is a fabrication that didn't show up in the Bible until the 14th century AD--1,300 years AFTER the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of Jehovah--when John Wycliffe introduced it into HIS English translation as godhede. Since you're relying on a made-up word not found in the oldest known copies of the Greek Scriptures aka New Testament, you've been debunked.


“John Wycliffe (born c. 1330, Yorkshire, England—died December 31, 1384, Lutterworth, Leicestershire) was an English theologian, philosopher, church reformer, and promoter of the first complete translation of the Bible into English.”

John Wycliffe | Biography, Bible, Beliefs, Reformation, Legacy, Death, & Facts | Britannica

John Wycliffe, English theologian, philosopher, church reformer, and promoter of the first complete translation of the Bible into English. He was one of the forerunners of the Protestant Reformation. The Lollards, a heretical group, propagated his controversial views.

www.britannica.com

“The ending "-head", is not connected with the word "head". John Wycliffe introduced the term godhed into English Bible versions in two places, and, though somewhat archaic, the term survives in modern English because of its use in three places of the Tyndale New Testament (1525) and into the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611). In that translation, the word was used to translate three different Greek words:”

Godhead meaning

Godhead[hede] of the Bible - Maranatha Media

Articles, books and presentations vital Scripture truths . Also includes a study collection of books, studies and resources for Bible study

maranathamedia.com

If you don't use "textual criticisms" Bible translation Alter2Ego, your foundational belief will crumble.
You are against the word "Godhead"?
How about "Deity" Alter2Ego?
Quoted from NASB, a literal word for word Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages render Col 2:9 refer to Jesus as Deity, as God.

Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Capbook:

You purposely ignored the context at Colossians chapter 2 so that you could cherry-pick a single word from verse 9 where it merely states that Jesus fully represents Jehovah God in human form. Representing someone else does not turn you into that person. Look at part of the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) that you conveniently skipped past.

"Buried with him [Jesus] in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him [Jesus] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him [Jesus] from the dead." (Colossians 2:12 -- King James Bible)


Next you will be arguing that God raised himself from the dead. Never mind that scripture says God cannot die.

 

[Alter2Ego]

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?

John 1:1-5, 14 [ESV]
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 was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ... 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.

Since John 1 (among other places) makes it irrefutably clear that Jesus and God the Father are both GOD, you must be prepared to embrace a “Binary Godhead” making the only real question:

• Is the HOLY SPIRIT a person or a force?

Do you accept the SCRIPTURE affirming the deity of Jesus Christ?
If not, then why do you REJECT the Word of God?

atpollard:

John 1:1 has three independent clauses. Look at Clause #1. It says: "In the beginning was the Word...."

According to Christendom's Trinity, Jesus Christ aka "the Word" does not have a beginning.


Christendom's Trinity is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Article I: Of faith in the Holy Trinity

This post is part of a Lenten series on the 39 Articles. Article I: Of faith in the Holy Trinity There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite pow…

www.sevenwholedays.org

An eternal person cannot have a beginning.



DEFINITION OF ETERNAL:

"1: having no beginning and no end in time: lasting forever"

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eternal

That's the first clue that Clause #3 where it says: "and the Word was God," is nothing more than manipulation of scripture by Trinitarian Bible translators.

 

[Alter2Ego]

2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?

The word “subservient” does not appear anywhere in my Bible, so I see no evidence of your claim that Jesus is “subservient” to almighty God. [Please provide a verse that I may respond to specifics.]

• Are women chattel to their husbands?
• How are wives ‘submissive’ to their husbands?

It doesn't have to, atpollard. The word subservient is an adjective that describes the position of one person in relationship to another. I used an adjective in my OP, at question #2.

Are you going to argue that Jesus didn't make it clear that he's in a lower position aka subservient from Jehovah the Father? Notice Jesus' own words below.

"So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." (John 8:28 -- English Standard Version)


"You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 -- New American Standard Bible)


"About the ninth hour, Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: “Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46 -- New World Translation)

 

[Alter2Ego]

2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?


3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

The word used of Jesus is [G3439] μονογενής and does not mean “had a beginning”. “Begotten” (mono genes) means “single of its kind, only” and is used of only sons or daughters viewed in relation to their parents. This meaning and use of the word is confirmed by multiple ancient sources, including: Hesiod; Herodotus; Plato; Josephus.

Therefore, these verses are telling you over and over: God has only one Son - Jesus.

atpollard:

You are telling us what YOU believe. Suppose you copy-paste the definition of begotten from a reliable dictionary (along with the weblink) to prove to the rest of us that the word "begotten" means, according to you: "single of its kind, only." Meanwhile, I will go with Merriam-Webster and a couple of other dictionaries that give the correct meaning of the word begotten.

"begotten

2 of 2

adjective​

: brought into existence by or as if by a parent"

Definition of BEGOTTEN

… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I will address the remainder of your comments at another time.

 

[atpollard]

The Triads were organized into a family normally a Father, Mother, and Son - formulating a divine family.

Amazing! You have unraveled the mystery that a child is born of a mother and a father … IRREFUTABLE PROOF the Trinity is a false doctrine!

Sorry, but I find it hard to take this argument seriously. Ancient people knew where babies came from. Really? Father + Mother = Child, therefore One God in three persons [Father, Son, Spirit].

 

[atpollard]

Oh it wasn't my rabbit trail it was @atpollard's rabbit trail.

Hey, I had help. I didn’t bring up Egyptian gods out of nothing, it was in the OP.

 

[atpollard]

atpollard:

John 1:1 has three independent clauses. Look at Clause #1. It says: "In the beginning was the Word...."

According to Christendom's Trinity, Jesus Christ aka "the Word" does not have a beginning.


Christendom's Trinity is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Article I: Of faith in the Holy Trinity

This post is part of a Lenten series on the 39 Articles. Article I: Of faith in the Holy Trinity There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite pow…

www.sevenwholedays.org

An eternal person cannot have a beginning.



DEFINITION OF ETERNAL:

"1: having no beginning and no end in time: lasting forever"

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eternal

That's the first clue that Clause #3 where it says: "and the Word was God," is nothing more than manipulation of scripture by Trinitarian Bible translators.

Ummm … “In the beginning was the word” indicates that when EVERYTHING BEGAN (the beginning = second 1 of minute 1 of hour 1 of day 1 of creation) “the WORD” already existed (“was”: a form of the verb “to be” indicating past tense; already existed).

You are acting as if it says “In the beginning God created the Word”, but it does NOT say that.

 

[mikesw]

2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?

uhh. The passages do not quite say "Almighty God Jehovah." That wording appears distorted and polemical. Then the other weak point is that "begotten" likely is an improper interpretation of the Greek and should only convey uniqueness -- God's one and only Son. An additional error remains in that Jesus can be begotten in the physical sense of becoming incarnate. No one here seems to deny that Jesus came as a human, in a form not existing before. If he did not become flesh, people would not have seen him. duhhh

3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

It helps to repeat the error of this point. The doctrine was established within the 3rd century. But some outlier views such as unitarianism and modalism existed and were seen as, ironically causing disunity {compare to the 'unity' in unitarianism -- okay nevermind}. The emperors did not care what decision was made. They simply wanted resolution of the dispute by perhaps 3% of the participants in the 325 council.

It doesn't have to, atpollard. The word subservient is an adjective that describes the position of one person in relationship to another. I used an adjective in my OP, at question #2.

Are you going to argue that Jesus didn't make it clear that he's in a lower position aka subservient from Jehovah the Father? Notice Jesus' own words below.

"So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." (John 8:28 -- English Standard Version)

Uh. The alternative is that Jesus was going around acting independently and in opposition to the Father. Second, this says "not on my own authority" such that coordinated authority cannot be excluded. Next it is admitted that Jesus was made incarnate to be below angels. He speaks as a man of authority (per Cornelius) yet he also is speaking from a human perspective among humans while only rarely presenting his deity.

"You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 -- New American Standard Bible)

We also realize that in incarnation that Jesus is made lower than angels for awhile. That would make his state at this time lower than the Father.

"About the ninth hour, Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: “Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46 -- New World Translation)

This speaks both of Jesus humanity just fine. More specifically this can indicate that Jesus was left as mere human after his Spirit separated from him -- if we take this as a rough possibility rather than a clear metaphysical truth.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Although Trinity is the most important doctrine within most of Christendom's 41,000 denominations, Trinitarians ignore the following facts:

1. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible in support of the dogma of a 3-in-1 god, in which there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) that are co-equal and co-eternal.

2. Neither Jesus Christ nor his disciples of the 1st century AD promoted the teaching that there are three persons within a godhead, all of whom are co-equal and co-eternal.

3. Trinity did not become official Christian teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and some 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written.

It would surprise some that there were trinity gods throughout the pagan world--for centuries before the idea of a 3-in-1 god was adopted by Christendom. Below are four such examples:

A. In the 2nd century BCE (two centuries before Jesus Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.


B. In the 2nd century B.C.E., Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.


C. In the 1st century C.E., Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


D. Even the Hindus in India have their own trinity of gods, as follows: (1) Brahma, (2) Vishnu, and (3) Shiva.



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. If the teaching of a Trinity god is essential to Christianity, how is it that the doctrine is nowhere to be found in scriptures within Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible?


2. If Jesus Christ is part of a trinity in which he has the same power (co-equal) and the same eternity (co-eternal) as Jehovah the Father, how is it that the scriptures repeatedly inform us that Jesus Christ is subservient to Almighty God Jehovah (indicating inequality) and why is it that scripture tells us over and over again that Jesus Christ is "begotten" (indicating he had a beginning)?


3. Why did it take two Roman Emperors/politicians, neither of whom were Christians, to enforce the official Trinity dogma some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene?

No discussion possible. Jesus specifically mentions Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Mat 28:19, so in some form/sense, the trinity exists. WE know little or nothing of the absolute nature/scientific definitions of God, so "Discussion" is nothing more that pushing around out ignorance. "Dogmas" are nothing but "Man's THEOLOGY" which is like noses - everybody's got one. Some Theology is Biblically accurate, and some is pure horse manure.

Bob Carabbio:

If you think one cherry-picked verse of scripture is going to prove your three-prong god, try again. The mentioning of three entities within the same sentence does not mean they are the same god. That's like telling me that the mentioning of (1) Bob Carabbio, (2) Bob Carrabbio's human father, and (3) something owned by Bob Carrabbio's father are combined into a single human simply because all three were mentioned within the same sentence.


FYI: Part of the context to Matthew 28:19 makes it clear that Jesus could not possibly be in a Trinity with Jehovah the Father. Notice part of the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) below, then answer the question that follows.


"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18 -- New International Version)


QUESTION #1 to BOB CARABBIO: If Jesus (the son) and Jehovah (the Father) are the same god and are co-equal, why did Jesus need to be given authority from his heavenly father?

 

[mikesw]

Bob Carabbio:

If you think one cherry-picked verse of scripture is going to prove your three-prong god, try again. The mentioning of three entities within the same sentence does not mean they are the same god. That's like telling me that the mentioning of (1) Bob Carabbio, (2) Bob Carrabbio's human father, and (3) something owned by Bob Carrabbio's father are combined into a single human simply because all three were mentioned within the same sentence.

God, as Trinity, is God overall, not just over Bob or Christians. Your terminology is rather disrespectful of God. I assume the background consists of matt 28:19-20, which appears as one name containing 3 unified distinctions within that name. Also, alter2ego is arguing not against the Trinity sense of God but against a modalistic heresy.

FYI: Part of the context to Matthew 28:19 makes it clear that Jesus could not possibly be in a Trinity with Jehovah the Father. Notice part of the context (surrounding words, verses, and chapters) below, then answer the question that follows.


"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18 -- New International Version)


QUESTION #1 to BOB CARABBIO: If Jesus (the son) and Jehovah (the Father) are the same god and are co-equal, why did Jesus need to be given authority from his heavenly father?

The question to Bob with the verse addressed earlier is that Jesus expressed a shared authority -- that Jesus did not act on his own -- i.e. in a way of excluding the Father. Also, in human form, it is quite sensible to say he has this authority. The weaknesses of the JW view become all the more apparent.

 

[amazing grace]

I agree. That portion of @Alter2Ego's OP gets us nowhere, typical of non-Trinitarians.

Let's look more closely at John 1:13 that states believers are "born...of God". That phrase is explained elsewhere in Scripture as the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus interprets this new birth in John 3:5–8 as being “born of water and the Spirit,” equating birth “from above” with birth by the Spirit, who sovereignly gives life as God Himself. These verses are not just trivial references to the fact that God is Spirit.

The piling up of negations in John 1:13 rules out everything except for a distinct divine sovereign agent who actually effects the believers' birth. In Scripture, whenever divine life is given, the agent is consistently the sovereign Spirit (Gen 1:2; Job 33:4; Ezek 37:14). Also, John 3:5–8 Jesus explicitly defines being “born of God” as being “born of the Spirit,” grounding regeneration in the Spirit’s sovereign action—“the wind blows where it wishes.” This is not a statement about God’s Spirit nature, but about the Holy Spirit's personal, his own free-will causation, which is the Spirit's attribute as God. Furthermore, John consistently attributes life-giving to the Spirit as a divine prerogative: “It is the Spirit who gives life” (John 6:63), a statement that would be blasphemous if the Spirit were anything less than fully God. Regeneration requires an agent, and John repeatedly identifies that agent as the Holy Spirit. Therefore, John 1:13 refers to the Holy Spirit sovereignly giving new life as God Himself, not to the trivial observation that God is spirit. Therefore, “born of God” in John 1:13 is not some unitarian personified expression but the Spirit’s sovereign regenerating work.

What 'piling up of negations in John 1:13'? This is the first I have read any content regarding John 1:13.

Correct, we have been given the right to become children of God through receiving and believing in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Right, through our belief in Jesus Christ - we are born again from above - from God. We are born again of the Spirit - that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The new birth is from God who is Spirit.

I'm not sure why you brought this subject up?

 

[Alter2Ego]

Capbook:

It matters not that the word "lexicon" is preceded by a descriptive word such as "Bible." The same rule applies for all lexicons.

"Dictionary vs. Lexicon — What's the Difference?
A dictionary provides definitions, spellings, and pronunciations of words in a language, whereas a lexicon is a collection of words and phrases in a language, often for specific fields."

Dictionary vs. Lexicon — What’s the Difference?

A dictionary provides definitions, spellings, and pronunciations of words in a language, whereas a lexicon is a collection of words and phrases in a language, often for specific fields.

www.askdifference.com

See that? Whereas a dictionary provides definitions, a "Bible" lexicon is nothing more than words strung together by the people who published it, and--get this--it was not written by inspiration of Jehovah God. If that were the case, it would be contained withing the Judeo-Christian Bible.

I present my resources, you misrepresent it. That's a "strawman argument" Alter2Ego.
To me that is cheap technique, I will be glad to face intellectual apologist.

A strawman argument is a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents, exaggerates, or distorts their opponent's actual argument, creating a weaker, easier-to-attack version (the "straw man") and then refutes that distorted argument, making it seem like they've defeated the original, stronger point. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=strawman+argument+means

Here's what you don't want to know Alter2Ego, read below;

Bible lexicon is a specialized dictionary for biblical languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) focusing on original word meanings, grammar, and usage in context, offering deep linguistic analysis, while a general dictionary defines common words in a broad language. https://www.google.com/search?q=Bible+lexicon+vs+general+dictionary&client=firefox-b-e&hs=68g9&sca_esv=c18e17d2c1e631b6&sxsrf=AE3TifOMaQ12lfGjr5zGQEOlbE_xY2wJOg:1766467201455&ei=gSZKaY-7G_ja2roP4_zGmA8&ved=0ahUKEwjP_7KQ-9KRAxV4rVYBHWO-EfMQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Bible+lexicon+vs+general+dictionary&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiI0JpYmxlIGxleGljb24gdnMgZ2VuZXJhbCBkaWN0aW9uYXJ5MgUQIRifBTIFECEYnwUyBRAhGJ8FSL4vUJAIWI8WcAF4AZABAJgBrwGgAZgIqgEDMS44uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIKoALrCMICChAAGLADGNYEGEfCAgcQIxiwAhgnwgIIEAAYCBgNGB7CAgsQABiABBiGAxiKBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIFEAAY7wXCAggQIRigARjDBMICChAhGKABGMMEGAqYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwMyLjigB_czsgcDMS44uAfgCMIHBzAuMi43LjHIBy6ACAA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Capbook:

Your "resources," such as Bible Lexicons and Strong's Concordance, are books that were NOT written by inspiration of Jehovah God. That's why you need them as a crutch, to bolster your arguments about a 3-prong god.

You, like the average Trinitarian who shows up on online forums to debate--are NOT interested in being corrected by the Bible. I know this from experience because I've been debating Trinitarians at dozens of online forums over the past decade. Because you realize you cannot find support in the Bible for a 3-prong god, you are forced to look elsewhere in places such as Bible Lexicons and Strong's Concordance. Not to mention made-up words such as "eternal begotten," and "godhead," etc.

When it isn't that, you cherry-pick verses from the Bible and ignore the context of the cherry-picked portions (the surrounding words, verses, and chapters). You ignore context because you realize the context will give the correct meaning to the portion of scripture that you isolated/cherry-picked. And Trinitarians are NOT interested in being corrected by scriptural context. They prefer to remain ignorant of the fact that the Bible doesn't agree with their false claims. This is deliberate behavior and is therefore wicked behavior.


FYI: Strong's Concordance was written by James Strong, a Trinitarian.

"James Strong’s Concordance Greek and Hebrew Lexicon

James Strong (1822-1894), author of Strong’s Concordance, has been elevated to the position of fourth member of the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and Hebrew definitions pepper today’s preaching, as if his lexicon was the final and 67th book of the Bible. His liberal definitions are used as quick and weak patches to fill a void in sermons. The space would be better filled by a laborious looking up of all the Bible’s usages of a word."

A Dire Warning About Dr. James Strong

A Dire Warning About Dr. James Strong

www.jesusisprecious.org

And you expect me to accept THAT as a credible reference source during Bible discussion? You must be out of your mind.


For the last time: My only authority--as a Christian follower of Jesus Christ--is the Bible. I will not accept any writing such as a Bible Lexicon if it contradicts scripture. Got that?

 

[FreeInChrist]

atpollard:

John 1:1 has three independent clauses. Look at Clause #1. It says: "In the beginning was the Word...."

According to Christendom's Trinity, Jesus Christ aka "the Word" does not have a beginning.


Christendom's Trinity is defined as follows:
"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and indivisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three persons, of ONE substance, power, and ETERNITY; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Article I: Of faith in the Holy Trinity

This post is part of a Lenten series on the 39 Articles. Article I: Of faith in the Holy Trinity There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite pow…

www.sevenwholedays.org

An eternal person cannot have a beginning.



DEFINITION OF ETERNAL:

"1: having no beginning and no end in time: lasting forever"

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eternal

That's the first clue that Clause #3 where it says: "and the Word was God," is nothing more than manipulation of scripture by Trinitarian Bible translators.

In the beginning of what?

The beginning of eternity or the beginning of this ball of mud we walk on?

There in no beginning, or end, for that matter to eternity, therefore YHWH always was.

When taling about In the beginning of creation.... The verse does say In the beginning was the Word. It does not say the Word was created at that point. It does not say the Word was a babe at that point, It says nothing whatsoever about the age or maturity of the Word other then a few verses later in the same chapter of John is written 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men

Now for all we know the Word through whom everything came into being could have an existence as far back as YHWH.

It is certain that since the inerrant word of Holy Scripture said All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being, it is impossible for the Word to have been created because he already was when that happened.

So it is a poor excuse and the wrong verse to make your point.

And for the JW on board, here are the verses from the NWTn starting with verse 2.

2  This one was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence
4  by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Everyone agrees. And all translations show He had no beginning.

But now, if you would like to discuss verse 14 when the Word became flesh, and then was named Jesus... we can argue if you want about what an incarnation is, and the continued existence of the Word (with new name).
BTW, I have had more then one user name. I am still the same person.