The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[mikesw]

The issue with the arguments you present is that they don't say what you say they do, i.e., the Bible never says Jesus is the angel of the Lord, never said he appeared as 1 of 3 men to Abraham, never says he pre-existed, never says he incarnated, etc.

Oh sorry man. I do not have the drawback of using the Unitarian Pocket Dictionary to control my discussions in this forum.

It is not explicit that the preexistent One is the Angel of the Lord. However, we see a preexistent one appearing in the Angel of the Lord passages. If you want to say this is of four in the Godhead, that is your option. The fact however is that an Angel often appears distinct from the first encounter of Yahweh. It is highly reductionistic of scripture to discredit the distinction of the Angel from his identity as Yahweh.

Your denial is just a blanket denial at best rather than thoughtful consideration of the passages.

No matter how strongly you feel about your beliefs, from a purely Scriptural perspective, your beliefs are purely speculative at best. I am not even mentioning all of the contradictions you introduce with your theories.

Haha. You deny all of John 1 and other passages of Jesus speaking as existing ahead of his time on earth. When you have some effective argument against the testimony of the deity of Jesus, then people might listen to you.

 

[Runningman]

Oh sorry man. I do not have the drawback of using the Unitarian Pocket Dictionary to control my discussions in this forum.

It is not explicit that the preexistent One is the Angel of the Lord. However, we see a preexistent one appearing in the Angel of the Lord passages. If you want to say this is of four in the Godhead, that is your option. The fact however is that an Angel often appears distinct from the first encounter of Yahweh. It is highly reductionistic of scripture to discredit the distinction of the Angel from his identity as Yahweh.

Your denial is just a blanket denial at best rather than thoughtful consideration of the passages.

Haha. You deny all of John 1 and other passages of Jesus speaking as existing ahead of his time on earth. When you have some effective argument against the testimony of the deity of Jesus, then people might listen to you.

I don't know why you view John 1 as your home base to run back to when the going gets tough. John 1 is what I quote, too. We're both quoting the same exact identical things. The difference is that the Bible is in line with what I am saying, but not in line with the trinity you are imagining.

 

[mikesw]

I don't know why you view John 1 as your home base to run back to when the going gets tough. John 1 is what I quote, too. We're both quoting the same exact identical things. The difference is that the Bible is in line with what I am saying, but not in line with the trinity you are imagining.

then prove it. drop you bad Greek grammar and distortions so you can prove beyond just thinking your view is special. I would have expected you to be able to prove the bible is wrong within the two years you have been trying to do that.

 

[Victoria]

Well, there is 1 John 5:7, @Runningman

That's the "home base" of all home bases.

I believe you said the KJB is your favorite translation, if I recall correctly. If so, just out of curiosity... would you agree w/ modern day scholars who claim 1 John 5:7 wasn't in the original manuscripts?

 

[Peterlag]

Well, there is 1 John 5:7, @Runningman

That's the "home base" of all home bases.

I believe you said the KJB is your favorite translation, if I recall correctly. If so, just out of curiosity... would you agree w/ modern day scholars who claim 1 John 5:7 wasn't in the original manuscripts?

I would and Matthew 28:19 too.

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

And concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265AD – 339 AD) – Matthew 28:19 "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. In a particular section of his book he was addressing people that claim Jesus used sorcery to perform his miracles, and in his argument he quoted Mathew 28:19 that says "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name." Interesting that he doesn't say baptize, nor does he mention the trinity or a threesome of any kind.

 

[Runningman]

then prove it. drop you bad Greek grammar and distortions so you can prove beyond just thinking your view is special. I would have expected you to be able to prove the bible is wrong within the two years you have been trying to do that.

Did you see that the Word is not The God in John 1:1? If you can begin with simple concepts about definite articles in Greek grammar then you can prove yourself teachable.

 

[Runningman]

Well, there is 1 John 5:7, @Runningman

That's the "home base" of all home bases.

I believe you said the KJB is your favorite translation, if I recall correctly. If so, just out of curiosity... would you agree w/ modern day scholars who claim 1 John 5:7 wasn't in the original manuscripts?

You might have a point if there were not older manuscripts than John 1, but we have the entire Old Testament that lays the foundation for understanding the New Testament; there is no pre-existent Jesus there. We also have John's testimony in John 1:1 showing the Word is not The God, his testimony in 1 John 1:1-3 about the Word being a thing, and and his belief that Jesus isn't even the Sovereign Lord and Creator, evidenced by his prayer in Acts 4:23-31. Didn't Jesus say no servant is greater than his master? Who do you suppose Jesus' master is according to Jesus?

 

[mikesw]

Did you see that the Word is not The God in John 1:1? If you can begin with simple concepts about definite articles in Greek grammar then you can prove yourself teachable.

I read the Greek that shows the Word was God. You have a bad Greek source or you have a unique Greek Grammar unknown in the past.

 

[Runningman]

I read the Greek that shows the Word was God. You have a bad Greek source or you have a unique Greek Grammar unknown in the past.

Ok. So I am only asking you to agree with what John 1:1 literally says since you are hyper-literalist about this verse only it seems. Do you agree with the literal Greek translation in Scripture that shows the word is not The God?

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

 

[mikesw]

Ok. So I am only asking you to agree with what John 1:1 literally says since you are hyper-literalist about this verse only it seems. Do you agree with the literal Greek translation in Scripture that shows the word is not The God?

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word.

haha. I knew you did not have a point to make.

 

[Runningman]

haha. I knew you did not have a point to make.

This is milk, not solid food, as they they. It does show distinction between the Word and The God in John 1:1 and that's the point John made. Just cross reference other things John said. If John believed Jesus was God incarnate, why would he not just say what you're saying? Is John 1 poetic in any way?

 

[mikesw]

This is milk, not solid food, as they they. It does show distinction between the Word and The God in John 1:1 and that's the point John made. Just cross reference other things John said. If John believed Jesus was God incarnate, why would he not just say what you're saying? Is John 1 poetic in any way?

John was expressing it in relationship to the concepts of logos shared by Philo and Greek Philosophy. You should be aware of that by now. But you do not listen nor learn anything. You just share incorrect Greek Grammar.

Also, John is more accurate than how most people share about the preexisting Word being God and becoming incarnate. Just remember those simple points and then you will not have to ask over and over and over again.

However, that is a good question regarding a reason for John using the given approach. That is what led to recognition of the cultural context of Philo and Greek Philosophy. The gospel starts with what both Jew and gentiles were familiar with.

 

[Runningman]

John was expressing it in relationship to the concepts of logos shared by Philo and Greek Philosophy. You should be aware of that by now. But you do not listen nor learn anything. You just share incorrect Greek Grammar.

"The word was with the God" shows the word's relationship relative to The God. That would mean the word is not the (definite article) God. So if the word is not The God, then who or what is the Word? This would leave the word being either indefinite or qualitative, but not possibly The God.

Also, John is more accurate than how most people share about the preexisting Word being God and becoming incarnate. Just remember those simple points and then you will not have to ask over and over and over again.

It would be helpful for you to try not to imagine things like "God incarnate" where no such things are mentioned. Since the word is not The God, as I said before, it must be either indefinite or qualitative. The JWs say the Word was a god and believe that Jesus pre-existed as an angel, but John didn't believe that either right? So that would leave us with no other option but to see the word as divine or godly, having the attributes of God, but not the God. Make sense why John referred to the word as a thing in 1 John 1:1-3 and didn't believe Jesus is God in the first place, evidenced by his prayer in Acts 4:23-31?

 

[mikesw]

"The word was with the God" shows the word's relationship relative to The God. That would mean the word is not the (definite article) God. So if the word is not The God, then who or what is the Word? This would leave the word being either indefinite or qualitative, but not possibly The God.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. It does not follow the Greek nor the English.

It would be helpful for you to try not to imagine things like "God incarnate" where no such things are mentioned. Since the word is not The God, as I said before, it must be either indefinite or qualitative. The JWs say the Word was a god and believe that Jesus pre-existed as an angel, but John didn't believe that either right? So that would leave us with no other option but to see the word as divine or godly, having the attributes of God, but not the God. Make sense why John referred to the word as a thing in 1 John 1:1-3 and didn't believe Jesus is God in the first place, evidenced by his prayer in Acts 4:23-31?

I know more so that you do not pay attention. I say the Word was God and the Word became flesh -- or became incarnate.

 

[mikesw]

There are far too many passages refuting the unitarian beliefs. Another good one is Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,

The excuses used by unitarians to dismiss that have mostly to do with the natural way of preaching what Jesus said while being incarnate. That is the part that throws unitarians off so much. It never has been the central message to say "follow Jesus because he is the Word incarnate." But the unitarian pretends the message should be that or nothing.

Note. I did mention earlier --
However, that is a good question regarding a reason for John using the given approach. That is what led to recognition of the cultural context of Philo and Greek Philosophy. The gospel starts with what both Jew and gentiles were familiar with.

 

[Runningman]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. It does not follow the Greek nor the English.


I know more so that you do not pay attention. I say the Word was God and the Word became flesh -- or became incarnate.

I just showed you the first sentence of John and you got lost. So you don't actually agree with John 1:1 literally, but rather you only agree with debunked version published by trinitarians. We already went over this, the result was similar last time.

Ok. I have shown you how the Word isn't a pre-existent being as evidenced by the Word not ever being described as a pre-existent being anywhere in the Bible. This shows what the prophets didn't believe and what God never revealed to any of them. That would only make sense if the Word wasn't God or a god, but it would make a lot of sense since the Word is a thing as John said in his prologue of 1 John 1:1-3.

What I asked before is for you to support your theories with evidence. That's why I don't understand why you would think you can run back to John 1:1 as if it is a safe haven for you. You just confessed here you have no idea what John is trying to say so what makes you think you can believe it correctly?

 

[mikesw]

I just showed you the first sentence of John and you got lost. So you don't actually agree with John 1:1 literally, but rather you only agree with debunked version published by trinitarians. We already went over this, the result was similar last time.

Ok. I have shown you how the Word isn't a pre-existent being as evidenced by the Word not ever being described as a pre-existent being anywhere in the Bible. This shows what the prophets didn't believe and what God never revealed to any of them. That would only make sense if the Word wasn't God or a god, but it would make a lot of sense since the Word is a thing as John said in his prologue of 1 John 1:1-3.

What I asked before is for you to support your theories with evidence. That's why I don't understand why you would think you can run back to John 1:1 as if it is a safe haven for you. You just confessed here you have no idea what John is trying to say so what makes you think you can believe it correctly?

you are not making sense, especially with the "have you you how the Word"

i guess you get upset when the true message of John 1 is shared. I won't say I'm sorry for doing that.

 

[Runningman]

you are not making sense, especially with the "have you you how the Word"

i guess you get upset when the true message of John 1 is shared. I won't say I'm sorry for doing that.

So you don't actually want to engage John 1:1. Very few here do. @synergy has before and we came to a partial agreement on this. It's been some months ago, but I do recall we agreed that the Word possesses the qualities of God. That's exactly what I am saying too! You don't need to be a Greek expert for this stuff, the Greek experts have did the work for us and we can read their presentations and make our own conclusions.

 

[mikesw]

There are far too many passages refuting the unitarian beliefs. Another good one is Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,

The excuses used by unitarians to dismiss that have mostly to do with the natural way of preaching what Jesus said while being incarnate. That is the part that throws unitarians off so much. It never has been the central message to say "follow Jesus because he is the Word incarnate." But the unitarian pretends the message should be that or nothing.

Note. I did mention earlier --
However, that is a good question regarding a reason for John using the given approach. That is what led to recognition of the cultural context of Philo and Greek Philosophy. The gospel starts with what both Jew and gentiles were familiar with.

oops. Here si the better version of Acts 20:28 (KJV)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
The excuses used by unitarians to dismiss that have mostly to do with the natural way of preaching what Jesus said while being incarnate. That is the part that throws unitarians off so much. It never has been the central message to say "follow Jesus because he is the Word incarnate." But the unitarian pretends the message should be that or nothing.

Note. I did mention earlier --
However, that is a good question regarding a reason for John using the given approach. That is what led to recognition of the cultural context of Philo and Greek Philosophy. The gospel starts with what both Jew and gentiles were familiar with.