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

[amazing grace]

All of your commentary essentially boils down to your opinion, interpretation, meaning it isn't scripture, though you try to pass it off as Scripture. The mistake you make, along with Grace, is that you project your beliefs and opinions into the Bible and present them as arguments rather than letting the Bible represent itself. What I want to do with you, when or if you are ready, is have a debate with me where you are only allowed to use the vocabulary, phrases, and terminology the Bible uses. I can do this, can you?

Is that a referring to me? Please tell me where I am 'projecting my beliefs and opinions into the Bible'? I don't believe the word was the second member of the Trinity nor do I believe the word is God as in equality only qualitatively which is within the Greek grammar of John 1:1c.

But please do tell me where I am in error and out of bounds with scripture. Thanks.

 

[Doug Brents]

So we have 1 John 1:1-3 that plainly describes the Word with impersonal pronouns, meaning that John knew that the Word is actually a thing.

Are you still stuck on this stupidity? We use impersonal pronouns for people all the time, as I tried to demonstrate to you in the last post. Get over it.

In literature, devices like personification can be used and we know that the Bible is full of such literary devices.

For example, throughout the Old Testament, there is no mention of a Word who is a He, Him, His, etc but there is mention of God's words being personified. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy.

The way exegesis works is we form our conclusions based precedent of what is written before, not things that are never mentioned. So understanding John 1:1-14 around 1 John 1:1-3 is a good way to understand what the Word is. The Word is actually a thing, not God, not a god, but even personal at all, but qualitive because the "Word is God" in John 1:1 is an anarthrous predicate nominative, meaning that the translation you have provided is false.

John was written before 1 John. So John sets the precedent over 1 John. The Word is God. And He is not a "thing"; He is the Creator of the universe, the maker of everything that is, whether seen or unseen; He is the Light of the World, and the Life; it is He who breathed into us our living spirit. And the Word is Jesus Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Is that a referring to me? Please tell me where I am 'projecting my beliefs and opinions into the Bible'? I don't believe the word was the second member of the Trinity nor do I believe the word is God as in equality only qualitatively which is within the Greek grammar of John 1:1c.

But please do tell me where I am in error and out of bounds with scripture. Thanks.

@Grace ambassador not you. You're doing a good job. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

 

[Runningman]

Are you still stuck on this stupidity? We use impersonal pronouns for people all the time, as I tried to demonstrate to you in the last post. Get over it.

John was written before 1 John. So John sets the precedent over 1 John. The Word is God. And He is not a "thing"; He is the Creator of the universe, the maker of everything that is, whether seen or unseen; He is the Light of the World, and the Life; it is He who breathed into us our living spirit. And the Word is Jesus Christ.

We have the Old Testament that is older than John 1. So using your reasoning, since the Word is not God anywhere in the Old Testament, but rather is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11) then there is better exegetical foundation and precedent that the Word is not literally God. John 1 is partially a poem, which is another thing many trinitarian theologians agree with, meaning that it isn't needed to be interpreted as literal. It also contradicts Scripture using your interpretation, we know that the Father alone is the one and only true God (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6) so any interpretations or translations that state something contrary are automatically a red flag and false.

 

[e v e]

So anyone who is a son or daughter of God is also God or just the one you cherry picked? I don't think people should be able to have their cake and eat it too in this case.

the word deity refers to a nature

The word God refers only to God

 

[e v e]

like here, we are currently in animal nature , fallen type of nature and perishable body

but in eden we will have been restored to our eden nature which has God's signature

 

[e v e]

all the nature made by God in eden has His signature

deity refers to a type... God is the source of His own nature and everything He does has his signature and nature upon it. God is God and his nature is deity and deity also refers to His sons and daughters, which does not mean they are God but only refers to their nature as actual sons and daughters : because we will be restored to Him. Which is why the sons can rule with Christ... we are not creatures though our bodies are animal nature atm. and at the moment we are also not restored to our glorified resurrection body... and are a mixed nature because of adam's crime against God and us. Actual humans are born of humans here. Actual children of God once returned to eden, which is the purpose of Christ incarnating and is the covenant, are of His nature. We were robbed of our birthright by satan and are now in animal flesh. (which, animals are creatures). as souls of Him we are Not creatures. gross.

such as could be here there are types - deer , rabbit, etc ., but all here does and is fallen nature regardless of type. deity is a type of nature.

There is satanic nature and there is eden nature.

 

[e v e]

every reference to His spirit in the OT has a feminine gender. ruach, feminine pronoun, etc.

 

[e v e]

I know this isn't addressed to me but I had to respond ---- so feel free to just read it and roll along - no response needed!

Well, I don't know about you but as for ME, THIS HUMAN - I am not fully human AND fully God --- I actually know of no human being that can qualify for being fully human AND fully God so apparently since you claim that Jesus is fully human AND fully God then he is nothing like us in every way and scripture is wrong??????

human in eden context as an imperishable glorified body and soul who is an actual son or daughter of Him is not the same context as human in a flesh body that dies.

 

[Runningman]

the word deity refers to a nature

The word God refers only to God

We can have the divine nature and God with a capitol G is the Father only?

 

[amazing grace]

human in eden context as an imperishable glorified body and soul who is an actual son or daughter of Him is not the same context as human in a flesh body that dies.

"Human" in 'Eden context' was two human beings just as you are a human being and I am a human being. They were mortal. They were not glorified. Yes, Adam was called 'the Son of God'.

Yes, they were created with the intent that they live forever with one condition, that they NOT eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed - sin and death through sin entered the world.