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

[Doug Brents]

There's a whole bunch of data there on John 1:1 and none of it suggests that the logos is Jesus.

And that is why I say it is a bunch of worthless nonsense. Scripture says that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus (John 1:14 and following). So the fact that the people you quoted, along with yourself, didn't comment on that fact, or refused to admit to that fact, is completely immaterial. The Logos, which is God the Creator, became Jesus, the man, but didn't cease to be God when He became a man.

 

[Runningman]

And that is why I say it is a bunch of worthless nonsense. Scripture says that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus (John 1:14 and following). So the fact that the people you quoted, along with yourself, didn't comment on that fact, or refused to admit to that fact, is completely immaterial. The Logos, which is God the Creator, became Jesus, the man, but didn't cease to be God when He became a man.

Question to help your misunderstandings. Since the "Word became flesh", is the Word still flesh right now?

 

[Doug Brents]

Question to help your misunderstandings. Since the "Word became flesh", is the Word still flesh right now?

That is irrelevant to this discussion. It is simply a diversionary tactic on your part to redirect the conversation to a path you think you can control better than the loosing position in which you currently find yourself.

 

[Runningman]

That is irrelevant to this discussion. It is simply a diversionary tactic on your part to redirect the conversation to a path you think you can control better than the loosing position in which you currently find yourself.

Well, your misunderstandings are explicitly stated by you, i.e., "Scripture says that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus" which is not what Scripture says. You have created a commentary that defines your interpretation, but you haven't shown that Scripture contains your commentary. You have also been previously shown that the Word is not The God, so your error you are perpetuating that someone who isn't The God is the Creator. That's unthinkable. That with 1 John 1:1-3 explicitly referring to the Word using impersonal pronouns (this, that, which that, them, it) and not a he, him, his, etc, we know that the Word is not God in the way you are proposing. Why? John said himself. John also didn't believe Jesus is God as evidenced by Acts 2:23-31. We have already went over those things and you couldn't change them, no matter how hard you tried.

The question produced by all of this must be since the "Word became flesh", is the Word still flesh right now?

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

Jesus stated that he came down from heaven, and John and Paul agreed with him, and even the Unitarian Dr Thayer in his Greek lexicon had to admit that the NT taught Jesus as being a divine person, even though he disagreed with it

 

[JesusFan]

Well, your misunderstandings are explicitly stated by you, i.e., "Scripture says that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus" which is not what Scripture says. You have created a commentary that defines your interpretation, but you haven't shown that Scripture contains your commentary. You have also been previously shown that the Word is not The God, so your error you are perpetuating that someone who isn't The God is the Creator. That's unthinkable. That with 1 John 1:1-3 explicitly referring to the Word using impersonal pronouns (this, that, which that, them, it) and not a he, him, his, etc, we know that the Word is not God in the way you are proposing. Why? John said himself. John also didn't believe Jesus is God as evidenced by Acts 2:23-31. We have already went over those things and you couldn't change them, no matter how hard you tried.

The question produced by all of this must be since the "Word became flesh", is the Word still flesh right now?

The word became human flesh and became incarnated as Jesus is extremely clear to the saved of the Lord

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus received his own glory after accomplishing the work God gave him to do.

No, rather per Jesus he received back the fulness of the glory already shared and had with the father in heaven before His Incarnation

 

[Runningman]

The word became human flesh and became incarnated as Jesus is extremely clear to the saved of the Lord

So in your beliefs God is flesh right now?

 

[JesusFan]

So in your beliefs God is flesh right now?

The Second person of the triune God is forever now fully God fully man

 

[Runningman]

The Second person of the triune God is forever now fully God fully man

You are only fallaciously begging the question. Who, of any authority, ever said what you are saying?

 

[Ladodgers6]

That was a called a false accusation, not something they were correctly understanding. Their motive was, of course, they wanted to pin something on Jesus that they could use to kill him with, which you seem to understand. So it is nonsense that you would suggest they rightly understand Jesus, contrary to his denials of being God. (John 10:33-36)

Not so fast runningman. What they got right Jesus was claiming to God. What they got wrong is that they didn't believe he is God.

@360watt was correct when he stated that God delegated authority to Jesus and the disciples to forgive sins so you have presented a moot point.

Jesus already had the power to forgive sins. Scripture is explicit that only God can forgive sins.

Here's a question, why do you suppose there are no examples of Jesus forgiving sins after he was taken to heaven?

Can you provide the example you are referring to?

God never gave His exclusive glory to another and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. If you're referring to God giving glory to Jesus and the disciples then that isn't the same thing as the contradiction you are suggesting.

Trying to run away again. Jesus is eternal & divine have the same divine essence and substance as his Father; yet they are one.

Isaiah 42:8, where He declares, "I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images".

He speaks in a human way here, saying that anybody’s self-glorification is a product of arrogance, or, at best, a desire of popularity and gaining of a better social standing and a higher esteem. All that is nothing, in the words of the Savior.

On the contrary, His glory is from the deeds which He commits: healings, miracles etc. which deeds He can do only jointly with the Father, and that is why He says that the Father glorifies Him. Now, what the Father does, the very same things also the Son does (John 5:19), which means that the Father does nothing without the Son, and if nothing, then necessarily the Son is uncreated, for Father cannot create anything save together and jointly with the Son. Thus as being uncreated both Father and the Son are God, for only God is uncreated and thus They share the same divine glory even before the world was made by Them (John 17:5).

So, then, just as the Son says that He cannot be glorified unless by Father, so also Father can say that He cannot be glorified unless by and through the Son, for the divine activity for which God is glorified, is always a joint activity of the Father and the Son (and Holy Spirit for that matter).

So let's clear up at least one of your misunderstandings. If the glory Jesus got from God is God's exclusive glory that He shares with none, then why did God give His exlusive glory to the disicples? Obvious answer, this example is not about God's exclusive glory.

John 17
5And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.
22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—

I am glad that are the one who brought these passages up. Because they speak clearly that Jesus and the Father are One. I will post the run of the passages.

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”​

Whose glory are believers gonna see?

Because how could the Pharisees be correct when Jesus said they were lying about what you said they correctly understood? I think it's quite telling you need to side with the very people Jesus condemned and repeat their talking points instead of Jesus'.

I think you need to rethink your position. Because if truth is what you seek, instead of trying to win an argument at any cost. You would take the time yourself and read, study and ponder upon it in pray. Because the religious leaders were correct that Jesus was claiming to God in the flesh. But they didn't believe who he was saying he is. This sir was their fatal error. Looking to puff themselves up with pride. Jesus tells over and over again who he is, yet they do not believe him. That he is God Incarnate came to redeem His people from their sins!​

 

[amazing grace]

No, rather per Jesus he received back the fulness of the glory already shared and had with the father in heaven before His Incarnation

Look it's rather simple -- In John 17:3 Jesus claims that HIS Father is the ONLY true God and that knowing this was eternal life....then two sentences after saying that HIS Father is the ONLY true God, does he then imply that he preexisted with God and that he himself is also God?

The glory destined for the Messiah at the right hand of the Almighty God was not something the Messiah had, that he had to give up and was given back. Apparently the exaltation and glory of the Messiah was predicted in the OT and fulfilled in Jesus. After all Jesus said in Luke 24:25-27 "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus stated that he came down from heaven, and John and Paul agreed with him, and even the Unitarian Dr Thayer in his Greek lexicon had to admit that the NT taught Jesus as being a divine person, even though he disagreed with it

I wish you guys would take a few Bible classes before you come on these sites and think you're teachers.

Something was said to have come from God or come from heaven if God was its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. The phrase “he who came down from heaven” in John 3:13 is to be understood in the same way we understand James’ words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God’s plan and then God directly fathered Jesus.

There are also other verses that say Jesus was “sent from God” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus “comes from above” and “comes from heaven” (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of “heaven” and pour out a blessing (Malachi 3:10). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven. They knew that the phrase meant that God was the origin of the blessings they received. Still another example is when Christ was speaking and said “Where was the baptism of John from? From heaven or of human origin?” (Matthew 21:25). Of course, the way that John’s baptism would have been “from heaven” was if God was the source of the revelation. John did not get the idea on his own, it came “from heaven.” The verse makes the idiom clear: things could be “from heaven” i.e., from God, or they could be “from men.” The idiom is the same when used of Jesus. We can say Jesus is “from God” or “from heaven” or “from above” in the sense that God is his Father and thus his origin.

The idea of coming from God or being sent by God is also clarified by Jesus’ words in John 17. He said “Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.” (John 17:18). We understand perfectly what Christ meant when he said “I sent them into the world.” He meant that he commissioned us, or appointed us. The statement does not imply that we were in heaven with Christ and then incarnated into the flesh. Christ said “As you sent me… I sent them.” So, in the same way that Christ sent us is how we should understand the phrase that God sent Christ.

 

[Peterlag]

And that is why I say it is a bunch of worthless nonsense. Scripture says that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus (John 1:14 and following). So the fact that the people you quoted, along with yourself, didn't comment on that fact, or refused to admit to that fact, is completely immaterial. The Logos, which is God the Creator, became Jesus, the man, but didn't cease to be God when He became a man.

John 1:14 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[Runningman]

Not so fast runningman. What they got right Jesus was claiming to God. What they got wrong is that they didn't believe he is God.

Not so fast dodger.

Jesus never said he is God, ever, not one time. There are only their misunderstandings and false accusations. How do I know? Jesus said so himself.

Observe how they said Jesus of making himself out to be God and Jesus' answer was that what they were accusing him. This shows Jesus had awareness that claiming to be God would have been an act of wrongdoing. Thus, Jesus actually denied their accusations and said he is the son of God, just like they are. If they are the sons of God, and Jesus is the Son of God, how is that blasphemy?

John 10
33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Jesus already had the power to forgive sins. Scripture is explicit that only God can forgive sins.

No. Jesus and his discples were "given" authority to forgive sins, meaning that they did not have this autority until it was given to them. Of course they did not have the authority to forgive sin until God gave it to them.

Matt 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.
8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Can you provide the example you are referring to?

To be clear, I asked you "why do you suppose there are no examples of Jesus forgiving sins after he was taken to heaven?" so I am going to have to defer you to the entire Bible. There are no examples of Jesus forgiving sins post-ascension. but the Father is. Hmm. So we have our God forgiving sins in the Bible, but yours isn't. Why is that?

Trying to run away again. Jesus is eternal & divine have the same divine essence and substance as his Father; yet they are one.

Is this your philosophical interpretation?

Isaiah 42:8, where He declares, "I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images".

He speaks in a human way here, saying that anybody’s self-glorification is a product of arrogance, or, at best, a desire of popularity and gaining of a better social standing and a higher esteem. All that is nothing, in the words of the Savior.

On the contrary, His glory is from the deeds which He commits: healings, miracles etc. which deeds He can do only jointly with the Father, and that is why He says that the Father glorifies Him. Now, what the Father does, the very same things also the Son does (John 5:19), which means that the Father does nothing without the Son, and if nothing, then necessarily the Son is uncreated, for Father cannot create anything save together and jointly with the Son. Thus as being uncreated both Father and the Son are God, for only God is uncreated and thus They share the same divine glory even before the world was made by Them (John 17:5).

So, then, just as the Son says that He cannot be glorified unless by Father, so also Father can say that He cannot be glorified unless by and through the Son, for the divine activity for which God is glorified, is always a joint activity of the Father and the Son (and Holy Spirit for that matter).

I am glad that are the one who brought these passages up. Because they speak clearly that Jesus and the Father are One. I will post the run of the passages.

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”​

Whose glory are believers gonna see?

I think you need to rethink your position. Because if truth is what you seek, instead of trying to win an argument at any cost. You would take the time yourself and read, study and ponder upon it in pray. Because the religious leaders were correct that Jesus was claiming to God in the flesh. But they didn't believe who he was saying he is. This sir was their fatal error. Looking to puff themselves up with pride. Jesus tells over and over again who he is, yet they do not believe him. That he is God Incarnate came to redeem His people from their sins!​

What you can't change is that in John 17:5,22 is that the glory the Father gave to Jesus is the same glory that Jesus gave to the apostles. So your "God doesn't share his glory with another" argument fails to pass the smell test. Of course, if Jesus were God, and the glory Jesus received from the Father is the exclusive glory that God shares with none, then you have entirely contradicted your premise. So you have presented a failed argument about the deity of Jesus based on glory.

Does God give glory to people? Yes He does. People can and do receive glory from God, but that doesn't mean they are God too.

So I recommend you rethink your position.

 

[Doug Brents]

Well, your misunderstandings are explicitly stated by you, i.e., "Scripture says that the Logos took on flesh and became the man we know as Jesus" which is not what Scripture says. You have created a commentary that defines your interpretation, but you haven't shown that Scripture contains your commentary. You have also been previously shown that the Word is not The God, so your error you are perpetuating that someone who isn't The God is the Creator. That's unthinkable. That with 1 John 1:1-3 explicitly referring to the Word using impersonal pronouns (this, that, which that, them, it) and not a he, him, his, etc, we know that the Word is not God in the way you are proposing. Why? John said himself. John also didn't believe Jesus is God as evidenced by Acts 2:23-31. We have already went over those things and you couldn't change them, no matter how hard you tried.

OK, Let's go over this one more time for the slowest in the class.
The Word/Logos was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1).
The Word then became flesh (John 1:14).
The man (in the flesh) that the Word became is the man that John the Baptist came to prepare the way for (John 1:15 & 29-30).