civic
Active Member
Amen the evidence is everywhere. It reminds me of the 2nd half of Romans 1 denying God who is self evident. Its the same blindness and denial with God the Son.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Peterlag
Active Member
No, I don't want to see the word trinity in the Bible. I want to see the trinity doctrine taught in the Bible and if it's not taught by the Jews and that means the Old Testament Prophets and not the unbelieving Jews you guys always throw in my face. And if it's not taught in the New Testament. Then it's not a biblical concept.
Doug Brents
Active Member
You have been shown where it is taught in the New Testament. It was not taught in the Old Testament because it was not known in that time. Just as Jesus was revealed in the NT, the concept of there being three beings that make up one God was not revealed until the NT.
civic
Active Member
The Plurailty of God is demonstrated in several places. Something does not have to be everywhere is scripture for it to be true. God can say something just once and its true. Frequency does not equal truth. I'm sure you would agree with that right. But frequency can and does mean emphasis.
hope this helps !!!
civic
Active Member
A. This one God is known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“the LORD”)
1. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60, 18:21, 39; Ps. 100:3, 118:27; etc.
2. Texts where the compound name “Jehovah God” (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:4-9, 15-22, 3:1, 8-9, 13-14, 21-23, 24:3; Ex. 9:30; Ps. 72:18, 84:11; Jonah 4:6
3. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29
4. The Bible never speaks of “the gods” as a group that includes Yahweh; nor is creation ever credited to “gods”; nor does it ever enjoin the worship of “gods”; nor does it speak in any other way that would imply that Yahweh was one of a group of deities. In fact the Bible explicitly rejects these types of statements (e.g., Deut. 5:6-10, 6:4-5, 13; Is. 43:10, 44:6-8, 24).
5. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim
B. This one God, the LORD, is one single divine being
1. The Bible always refers to the LORD or God in the third person singular (he, his, him), never as they, and speakers in the Bible addressing God/the LORD always do so in the second person singular (you singular). Citing texts is really unnecessary because there are far too many occurrences, but see, for example, Gen. 1:5, 10; Ex. 3:6, 12-14, 20:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Kings 18:39; Ps. 23:2-3.
2. Whenever in the Bible the LORD or God speaks to human beings or other creatures, he always speaks of himself in the first person singular (I, and my/mine, not us/we and our/ours). Of the obviously numerous examples, see the especially famous examples in Ex. 3:14; Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6. He says “I am the LORD” or “I am the LORD your/their God” some 164 times in the OT (especially in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Isaiah, and Ezekiel).
3. This conclusion cannot be circumvented by saying that there is one “Godhead” consisting of a plurality of divine beings. The word “Godhead” is equivalent to the word “Godhood” (-head is an old English suffix meaning the state or status of something, as in maidenhead, the state of being a maiden or virgin). In the English Bible it is used to translate three closely related words: theion (“divine being,” Acts 17:29), theiotês (“divine nature,” Rom. 1:20), and theotês (“deity,” Col. 2:9). In none of these texts does “Godhead” refer to more than one divine being. The use of “Godhead” as a term for the Trinity is not found in the Bible; it is not inaccurate per se, but it must be understood as a term for a single divine being, not a group of gods.
C. However, the Bible never says that God is “one person.”
1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated “substance” in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 “God” refers specifically to the Father.
2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person.
3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but ironically the Hebrew literally means “his faces.”
D. The use of plural pronouns by God in Genesis 1-11
1. As already noted, the Bible always refers to God in the singular, and he always speaks of himself with singular pronouns (I, me, mine, my) when addressing creatures. These singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three “persons” as long as these persons are not separate beings.
2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretations cannot account for these occurrences.
a. A plural reference to God and the angels is not likely in these texts. In 1:26 “our image” is explained by the parallel in 1:27, “in God’s image.” In 3:22 “like one of us” refers back to 3:5, “like God.” In 11:7 “let us go down and there confuse their language” is explained immediately in 11:8-9, “So the LORD [Yahweh] scattered them abroad from there … The LORD confused the language of the whole earth.” Angels were evidently present when God created human beings (cf. Job 38:4-7), but the Bible never includes them as participants in creating human beings. Nor does the Bible ever speak of humans as being in the image of angels.
b. That the plural is in some way literal is evident from 3:22 (“like one of us”) and from 11:7 (“Come, let us go down”), which parallels the people’s statements “Come, let us …” (11:3, 4).
c. The “literary plural” (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to OT texts in which God is speaking, not writing.
d. The “plural of deliberation” or “cohortative plural” (as in “Let’s see now …”) with reference to a single person is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and clearly cannot explain the plural in Gen. 3:22 (“like one of us”).
e. The “plural of amplitude” or of “fullness” (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of “God”) is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.
f. The “plural of majesty” (the royal “we”) is possibly attested in 1 Kings 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these is a certain use of that idiom; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.
3. There are two factors that may explain why these intradivine plural pronouns occur only in Genesis 1-11.
a. These plural pronouns express communication among the divine persons, rather than communication from God to human beings or angelic creatures.
b. It may be significant that the use of these plural forms is reported only in Genesis 1-11, prior to the revelations to Abraham, when the focus of biblical revelation became the fostering of a monotheistic faith. The history of the OT is a history of the struggle to establish Israel as a community committed to belief in one God. In that context it would have been confusing to have referred overtly to the three divine persons of the triune God. This also explains why there is no overt revelation of the three persons in the OT.
E. The uniqueness of God should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons
1. Only one God, thus unique: see I.A
2. None are even like God: see I.B
3. God cannot be fully comprehended: Is. 40:18, 25; 1 Cor. 8:2-3
4. God can be known only insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18
5. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16
6. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench
a. Separate from the world: Is. 40:22; Acts 17:24
b. Contrasted with the world: Ps. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17
c. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6, 102:25; Is. 42:5, 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2, 11:3, Robert Bowman
hope this helps !!!
Peterlag
Active Member
Nobody ever showed where the trinity is taught in the Bible. What you show are a couple of words from a half statement that says someone called Jesus God and always out of context. Or you show one word that has grammar that you think means it was referring to Jesus being like God. But you have never given a whole teaching on the trinity because there is none. Not in the Old or New Testament. Nowhere.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I’ll start with the method, then the list, then circle back briefly to why the Trinity falls into this same category without re-arguing it unless you want that next.
Therefore untrue???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Lets have a look at what else is not there that you might evenn believe to be true...
And we will keep it strictly biblical and historical .....not church-tradition driven, not word-games, and not “later theology reading itself back into the text.”
Below are major doctrines commonly believed today that are not actually taught as doctrines in Scripture, And these are judged by (1) the Old Testament prophets (the believing Jews) and (2) the New Testament itself.
The biblical standard you want is a doctrine that is biblical only if... and correct me if I am wrong.
It is taught, not merely inferred, It is consistent with the OT prophets, It is affirmed in the NT without contradiction
It would have been intelligible to first-century Jews
Should a doctrine that requires post-apostolic councils, or philosophical categories foreign to Hebrew thought, or harmonization techniques the apostles never used,
then it is extra-biblical, even if later declared “orthodox.” And you do not want this..... at all..... right?
Alrighty then.... and oh my poor fingers..... would that I could post with the mic on the cell.....
Here are some doctrins that are commonly believed that are
OT: God is always one person (YHWH), never a tri-personal being
Prophets: No prophet teaches shared essence, co-equality, or eternal relations
NT: No apostle explains God as “one being in three persons”
Reality: The doctrine exists only by later synthesis, not apostolic teaching
This alone already fails your standard, but let’s keep going.
Now lets look at the immortal soul. By the Greek concept, not Hebrew
What’s believed: Humans have an inherently immortal soul that survives death.
What’s believed .... Humans have an inherently immortal soul that survives death.... or is that not in your belief system?
Bible actually teaches...
Souls die ~Ezekiel 18:4 “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die
Immortality is given, not innate ~ 1 Corinthians 15:53–54 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.
Resurrection, not disembodied life, is the hope
And the Origin ......... Plato, not Moses
And the OT prophets........ Never taught natural soul immortality
And the NT....... Resurrection corrects Greek ideas, it doesn’t adopt them
Hmmmm, lets see what else we can find. Ah yes.....
What’s believed..... The wicked suffer forever in conscious torment. May not be your belief but it is very, very, very common even here on BAM.
What the Bible actually teaches.....
Death, destruction, perishing
“The wages of sin is death”
Eternal punishment = eternal result, not eternal process
And in the OT .....No prophet teaches eternal torment
And in the NT ..... Language is judicial, not metaphysical
And the Development Fully formed centuries later
What about
What’s believed .... All humans are born guilty because of Adam. How many thread have you read if not contributed in on this.What the Bible actually teaches ....
Adam brought death, not inherited guilt
Each person is judged for their own sin ~ Ezekiel 18: 20 ,30 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
Sin spreads by imitation and mortality, not legal transfer
FACT...OT prophets Explicitly deny inherited guilt
FACT...NT Never teaches infants are born guilty
"Ooh-ooh-ooooh, Mr. Kotter!".... are you too young to remember Horshack? I got another one......We all know what’s believed and those who do believe it. The Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.
However... The Bible actually teaches......
The Sabbath is the seventh day
There was no command to change it
And the Apostles met on various days, never called Sunday a Sabbath
In the OT..... Sabbath is covenant-specific and defined
In the NT..... No replacement command exists
Lets not forget...
What’s believed ..... Believers vanish secretly before tribulation. That secret rapture stuff....
While the Bible actually teaches....
There is One visible return of Christ
The Resurrection at the last day
And No two-stage coming
In the OT... Never hinted at.
In the NT...Not taught by Jesus or apostles.
And the Origin of this one....19th century systematization.
What id believed ....Jesus is explicitly taught to be the Almighty God. (Not everyome has heard this one,
The Bible actually teaches:
One God: the Father
Jesus is Messiah, Son, Lord appointed by God
Authority, judgment, kingdom are given to him
In the OT prophets .....Messiah is God’s servant, not God Himself
In the NT ....Jesus has a God, prays to God, is exalted by God
What is believed... God is one being shared by multiple persons. (This, BTW, is not my or any true Trin believers belief)
Bible actually teaches... God is one who Never defines God in ontological or philosophical terms, and that Hebrew thought is personal, not metaphysical
This category simply does not exist in Scripture at all and it matters.....because
The apostles never taught doctrines by abstraction.
They taught by.... narrative, declaration, prophecy fulfillment, and direct instruction.
When later doctrines must be... inferred, harmonized, philosophically explained, or defended against Scripture itself,
IOW they are theological constructions, not biblical teachings.
That does not automatically make them heretical but it does make them non-biblical by definition.
Now I wrote all of these to say that If a doctrine is not taught by the OT prophets and not taught plainly in the NT,then it is not a biblical doctrine.
.....“If Scripture does not teach it, we cannot assert it as doctrine.”
That is a Jewish–apostolic rule, not a modern one.
That standard is unquestionably Jewish, Apostolic, Scriptural And historically honest...
Remember the following....
Just because something is not taught as doctrine in Scripture does not automatically make it false.
It means Scripture does not require belief in it.
And I will leave you with one analogy I feel you will understand.
Looking at Scripture itself .
The Bible teaches resurrection
It does not explain the mechanics of resurrection
Any explanation of how resurrection works.....may be reasonable, may even be true, but is not doctrine
Same logic applies to the Trinity.
Except it is taught
John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:18 (NASB 95) — 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 20:28–29 (NASB 95) — 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him,
“Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Matthew 1:23 (NASB 95) — 23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”
Acts 2:36–39 (NASB 95) — 36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
Acts 20:28 (NASB 95) — 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Titus 2:13 (NASB 95) — 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Hebrews 1:3 (NASB 95) — 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Hebrews 1:8 (NASB 95) — 8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
Hebrews 1:9 (NASB 95) — 9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
Hebrews 1:10 (NASB 95) — 10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
2 Peter 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
1 John 5:20 (NASB 95) — 20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB 95) — 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Philippians 2:6–7 (NASB 95) — 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB 95) — 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 9:6 (NASB 95) — 6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Colossians 2:9 (NASB 95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Peterlag
Active Member
The verses you list are not teachings. They are a couple of words from a half statement that says someone called Jesus God and always out of context. Or you show one word that has grammar that you think means it was referring to Jesus being like God. But you have never given a whole teaching on the trinity because there is none. Not in the Old or New Testament. Nowhere.
That is ignorant. Those are part of John 1 and share continuity. How can peterlag say they are not in context?
The evidence speaks more directly to the deity of Christ and is sufficient as a starting point of the Trinity even though not explaining the whole way Jesus can be deity too.
Peterlag
Active Member
A God Consisting of Two Persons...
In 325 A.D. The Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea to settle a very heated dispute between the bishops of two cities, Alexandria and Antioch, regarding the Page 9 of 14 relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father. This dispute was troubling his empire and he desperately needed to resolve it. After thirty days of debate, Constantine arose from the gold chair on which he had presided over the meetings and gave a lengthy speech, just before the issue was decided by majority vote. The speech was recorded by Eusebius, “the father of church history,” and takes up twenty pages of a large history book in my library. Shockingly, in this gathering that was about to decide for Christianity for the next 1700 years the all important question, “Who is Jesus Christ?,” the emperor did not quote one Bible verse; not one word from Peter, Paul, John, James, Jude or Jesus himself. Who did he quote? Plato! Yes, the homosexual, pagan, Greek philosopher, Plato! He called Plato “the gentlest and most refined of all” and credited him with teaching us the doctrine of the “second God...distinguishing them numerically as two...and the being of the second Deity proceeding from the first.” He says, “Plato’s sentiments were sound” and “a doctrine not merely to be admired, but profitable too.” He went on to quote the demon inspired priestess who spoke as an oracle at the temple of Apollo at Erythrea, the demon oracle at Cuma, and the Romans Cicero and Virgil. (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; Vol. 1; p. 566-576). It was in this atmosphere that the 300 bishops voted that Jesus is God just as the Father is God, “of one substance with the Father.” Thus Christianity arrived at a doctrine of God consisting of two persons. The Birth of The Christian Doctrine of The Trinity. As late as the year 350 A.D. there was still no Christian doctrine of the Trinity on this planet.
However, fifty-six years after Nicea, in 381 A.D., the emperor Theodosius called the Council of Constantinople to try and settle the continuing quarrel regarding the personhood of God. Three bishops from the province of Cappadocia in Asia Minor, also followers of Plato, had supposedly figured it out, there is one God who exists as three Persons. They came to be called “the three Cappadocians” and one, Gregory of Nazianzus presided over the Council. After much bitter wrangling the views of the three Cappadocians won out, and this council of 186 bishops adopted the “Creed of Constantinople.” It states in part: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and Page 10 of 14 glorified” (Encyclopedia Americana; Vol. 20; p. 310). Note: According to Jesus, Peter, and Paul the Holy Spirit is not a third person of God, but rather the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11; John 15:26; Luke 4:18; Luke 24:49; Isa. 61:1; Acts 2:17, 33; Rom. 8:11; Eph. 3:14-16). Thus for the first time in history, Christianity had a doctrine of “three persons in one God,” the Trinity. The doctrine of Plato had prevailed! Consider the following quotes: Trinitarian scholar Charles C. Ryrie: “In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity...” (Basic Theology; p. 65).
Written by: Ron Viehe
In 325 A.D. The Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea to settle a very heated dispute between the bishops of two cities, Alexandria and Antioch, regarding the Page 9 of 14 relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father. This dispute was troubling his empire and he desperately needed to resolve it. After thirty days of debate, Constantine arose from the gold chair on which he had presided over the meetings and gave a lengthy speech, just before the issue was decided by majority vote. The speech was recorded by Eusebius, “the father of church history,” and takes up twenty pages of a large history book in my library. Shockingly, in this gathering that was about to decide for Christianity for the next 1700 years the all important question, “Who is Jesus Christ?,” the emperor did not quote one Bible verse; not one word from Peter, Paul, John, James, Jude or Jesus himself. Who did he quote? Plato! Yes, the homosexual, pagan, Greek philosopher, Plato! He called Plato “the gentlest and most refined of all” and credited him with teaching us the doctrine of the “second God...distinguishing them numerically as two...and the being of the second Deity proceeding from the first.” He says, “Plato’s sentiments were sound” and “a doctrine not merely to be admired, but profitable too.” He went on to quote the demon inspired priestess who spoke as an oracle at the temple of Apollo at Erythrea, the demon oracle at Cuma, and the Romans Cicero and Virgil. (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; Vol. 1; p. 566-576). It was in this atmosphere that the 300 bishops voted that Jesus is God just as the Father is God, “of one substance with the Father.” Thus Christianity arrived at a doctrine of God consisting of two persons. The Birth of The Christian Doctrine of The Trinity. As late as the year 350 A.D. there was still no Christian doctrine of the Trinity on this planet.
However, fifty-six years after Nicea, in 381 A.D., the emperor Theodosius called the Council of Constantinople to try and settle the continuing quarrel regarding the personhood of God. Three bishops from the province of Cappadocia in Asia Minor, also followers of Plato, had supposedly figured it out, there is one God who exists as three Persons. They came to be called “the three Cappadocians” and one, Gregory of Nazianzus presided over the Council. After much bitter wrangling the views of the three Cappadocians won out, and this council of 186 bishops adopted the “Creed of Constantinople.” It states in part: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and Page 10 of 14 glorified” (Encyclopedia Americana; Vol. 20; p. 310). Note: According to Jesus, Peter, and Paul the Holy Spirit is not a third person of God, but rather the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11; John 15:26; Luke 4:18; Luke 24:49; Isa. 61:1; Acts 2:17, 33; Rom. 8:11; Eph. 3:14-16). Thus for the first time in history, Christianity had a doctrine of “three persons in one God,” the Trinity. The doctrine of Plato had prevailed! Consider the following quotes: Trinitarian scholar Charles C. Ryrie: “In the second half of the fourth century, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor gave definitive shape to the doctrine of the Trinity...” (Basic Theology; p. 65).
Written by: Ron Viehe
This analysis will remain rather suspicious unless the biases of the Philip Schaff and Ron Viehe are properly considered or are overcome by proof that goes behind guilt by association of the bishops with Constantine's lifestyle. Viehe definitely tries to present the recognition of the triune God as a surprise event instead of the general direction of bishops -- which may be only his speculation.
You have not shown it is out of context. You ignored the fact one of the testators is God himself, and you have ignored the fact Jesus confirmed the statement.
Thus you ignore each verse.
Scripture, however, clearly identifies Jesus as God as well as man.
John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:18 (NASB 95) — 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 20:28–29 (NASB 95) — 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him,
“Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Matthew 1:23 (NASB 95) — 23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”
Acts 2:36–39 (NASB 95) — 36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
Acts 20:28 (NASB 95) — 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Titus 2:13 (NASB 95) — 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Hebrews 1:3 (NASB 95) — 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Hebrews 1:8 (NASB 95) — 8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
Hebrews 1:9 (NASB 95) — 9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
Hebrews 1:10 (NASB 95) — 10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
2 Peter 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
1 John 5:20 (NASB 95) — 20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB 95) — 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Philippians 2:6–7 (NASB 95) — 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB 95) — 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 9:6 (NASB 95) — 6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Colossians 2:9 (NASB 95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
FreeInChrist
Active Member
How is it @Peterlag that you are still looking for a biblical doctrine on the Godhead, yet you deny what John 1:1 says and say
They are a couple of words from a half statement that says someone called Jesus God and always out of context. Your comment in post #4409... and you have to dredge up commentary from a bunch of men who are merely using their educated guesses is if it is ir is it not.
You deny John 1... who was living through it at the time and he wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," emphasizing the divine nature and pre-existence of Jesus, referred to as "the Word."
And dont you dare.... dont you say John was written bty someone different at a later date..... THE VERSE STANDS AS A COMPLETE SENTENCE AND THOUGHT... LEAVING NO DOUBT.
Bible Hub has a write up on
https://biblehub.com/q/John_1_1_s_role_in_Trinity_doctrine.htm
Since you cannot argue with dead people ... just complain.
Since you can get nowhere with us who see you being wrong.... so you complain..
Why dont you actually take it up with living people who post this stuff and get paid for it and you might just go down
in the history books as the one and only who proved it false.
|
Peterlag
Active Member
I ignore the verses you post and the first one you list is John 1:1. I have responded to that a million times. I even have a post on this site that deals with it. Here I will post it again...
“In the beginning.” There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that remind us of God’s original creation while referring to the work of restoration done by Jesus Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Genesis 1 refers to God’s original creation; John 1 refers to the Restoration, not the original creation.
While we agree with the Catechism that the meaning of “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the Gospel and the restoration of mankind, we also need to point out that the word “beginning” was deliberately chosen by God to remind us of the original creation, and to set the stage for the sequence of events that follow; for example, the conflict between light and darkness. In the context of the Restoration, then “the Word” is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation.
So using “In the beginning” takes us both back to the beginning in Genesis 1:1, and sets us up for the “beginning” of the work of Christ and the Restoration of mankind.
Genesis 1. THE CREATION
- In the beginning—The creation
- Chaos and darkness
- God hovering over the water
- God spoke light and more into being
- Light overcoming the darkness
- God preparing a Garden of Delight for people and living among them
- THE FALL (then God lived in a tent (the “tabernacle”) and people gazed at its glory)
The “Word” is translated from the Greek word logos (λόγοc). It refers to God’s reason as played out in His plan and purpose. It is important that Christians have a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in most versions of John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most Bibles logos is capitalized as “Word” (some versions even put “Jesus Christ” instead of “Word” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator’s decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. Below are five points to consider.
In both Greek literature and Scripture, logos has a very wide semantic range that falls into two basic categories: one is the mind and products of the mind like “reason” (the word “logic” is ultimately from the root logos) and the other is the expression of that reason in language or life: thus, “word” “saying” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meanings of logos. Some of the ways it is translated in English versions of the Bible are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words. Although the word logos appears over 300 times in the Greek text, it is only translated “word” about 175 times in the King James Version, and 125 times in the NIV.
Any good Greek lexicon will also show the wide lexical range of logos. The definitions below are from the BDAG Greek-English lexicon. The words in italics are translated from logos: The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meanings. With all the ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what logos refers to in John 1:1? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. John 1:1 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, purposes, and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. Thus the logos has been expressed through His creation (Romans 1:19-20) and Psalm 19 tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God. The logos has also been made known through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, which is the written “Word of God.” Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2).
However, when we are studying John 1:1 and the use of logos in the Bible, and reading what the commentaries, systematic theologies, Bible dictionaries, etc., say about it, we must be very careful to discern where the writer is getting his information. We assert that John and his hearers thought of Jesus as the Son of God, not God. However, many commentators are Trinitarian and simply assume that the word logos in John 1:1 refers to Jesus, and then from that assumption ignore the way the Jews and Greeks of John’s time thought about the logos, and give it a meaning it had in later Christian history as the Trinity doctrine developed, and that new meaning is “Jesus Christ.”
For example, Edward Klink III writes: “Certainly the term [logos] might be recognizable [to John’s audience] but its direct connection to Jesus assumes that Jesus, not merely his [John’s] religious-philosophical context, determines its meaning. …John is not relying on a background but on a foreground. For it is Jesus who embodies the “Word” (logos) in the flesh." Klink is asserting that logos means Jesus in John 1:1 because later in John the logos became flesh. But to us that is an unwarranted assumption. There is no historical evidence that the people of Christ’s time who did not believe (John wrote to get people to believe that Jesus was the Christ, John 20:31) ever thought the logos was Jesus Christ, but they did believe that God’s logos was His plans and purposes, and that logos became flesh in Jesus Christ in much the same way that they came into concretion as the Word of God spoken by the apostles and especially as that word became written down as the written “Word [logos] of God.”
Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason. Andrews Norton postulates that in John 1:1 perhaps “the Disposing Power of God” would be a good translation for logos. Anthony Buzzard sets forth “plan” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. James Broughton and Peter Southgate say that logos was used “to describe the thoughts and plan of God being put into action." 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 is 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 the Bible the “Word” of God, and revelation “a word from God.”
If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason, and wisdom—it is clear that those things were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Proverbs 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The figure of speech personification occurs when something is given human characteristics to emphasize something. Psalm 35:10 portrays bones talking. Psalm 68:31 portrays Ethiopia as a woman with her hands outstretched to God. Isaiah 3:26 says the gates of Zion will lament and mourn. Isaiah 14:8 says the cypress trees will rejoice. 1 Corinthians 12:15 portrays the foot talking. The Bible has many examples of personification, and wisdom is personified in Proverbs. Nevertheless, no ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29-30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.” Similarly, the logos was with God in the beginning, because God’s plan, purpose, and wisdom were with Him, but we should not think of these as a separate person.
The use of “word” in the prologue of John as the plan and purpose of God is unique in the book, something that was pointed out by the eminent scholar, F. F. Bruce: “…the term "Word" does not reappear in the body of the Gospel [of John] in the sense which it bears in the prologue.” That statement is true and is easy to confirm from any Greek concordance, furthermore, it makes perfect sense in the light of the goal of the Gospel of John, which is stated in John 20:31, “but these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that by believing you will have life in his name.” The plan and purpose of God, that the earth and people would be restored to Him, was with Him in the beginning, and the plan and purpose became flesh in Jesus Christ as John 1:14 says, and so from John 1:14 until the end of John, the flesh and blood Christ is the focus, not the “plan” the logos, of God.
Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word.
The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with using the idea of God’s “Word” to refer to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as “word.”
Like the Aramaic-speaking Jews, the Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.” J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt] from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.”l
One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos) and by thy wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”
The logos, that is, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative, and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no preexistence of 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 did not preexist in any form in the distant past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.
It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs of those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word “muthos,” which we today call “myths” or “mythology.” These muthos, these myths, were often mystical and beyond rational explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.
- In the beginning—the plan
- All things were made in accordance with the plan
- In the plan was light and life
- The darkness could not understand or overcome it
- The plan became flesh and lived in a tent among us, and we gazed at its glory.
- (Romans 15:18 NIV) “what I have said”
- (Luke 20:20 NASB) “they might catch him in some statement"
- (Matthew 21:24 NIV) “I will also ask you one question”
- (1 Timothy 5:17 NIV) “especially those whose work is preaching"
- (Galatians 5:14 NIV) “the entire law is summed up in a single command”
- (John 4:37 NIV) “thus the saying, One sows, and another reaps”
- (Luke 4:32 NIV84) “his message had authority”
- (John 6:60 NIV) “this is a hard teaching”
- (Acts 8:21 NIV) “you have no part or share in this ministry”
- (Acts 15:6 NASB) “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter”
- (Matthew 15:6 NIV) “you nullify the Word of God”
- (Hebrews 13:7 NIV84) “leaders who spoke the Word of God”
- (Matthew 12:36 NIV84) “men will have to give account on the Day of Judgment"
- (Matthew 18:23 NIV) “A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants”
- (Acts 10:29 NASB) “I ask for what reason you have sent for me
- And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Genesis 39:2).
- And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Exodus 19:17).
- And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).
- And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Psalms 2:4).
- They believed in the name of His word (Psalms 106:12).
Starting several centuries before Christ, certain Greek philosophers worked to replace the muthos with what they called the logos, a reasonable and rational explanation of reality. It is appropriate that, in the writing of the New Testament, God used the word logos, not muthos, to describe His wisdom, reason, and plan. God has not come to us in mystical experiences and irrational beliefs that cannot be understood; rather, He reveals Himself in ways that can be rationally understood and persuasively argued.
In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths, at the time the Gospel of John was written, a belief system called Gnosticism was taking root in Christianity. Gnosticism had many ideas and words that are strange and confusing to us today, so, at the risk of oversimplifying, we will describe a few basic tenets of Gnosticism as simply as we can.
Gnosticism took many forms, but generally, Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being, which they designated as the “Monad.” The Monad produced various gods, who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names, in part because of their power or position). One of these gods, called the “Demiurge” created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry, evil, and jealous god. This evil god, Gnostics believed, was the god of the Old Testament, called Elohim. The Monad sent another god, “Christ” to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of the evil Elohim. Thus, a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and the earth, but he would not agree that He was the supreme God. Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ were at cross-purposes with each other. This is why it was so important for John 1:1 to say that the logos was with God, which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement.
The opening of the Gospel of John is a wonderful expression of God’s love. God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). He authored the opening of John in such a way that it reveals the truth about Him and His plan for all of mankind and, at the same time, refutes Gnostic teaching. It says that from the beginning there was the logos (the reason, plan, power), which was with God. There was not another “god” existing with God, especially not a god opposed to God. Furthermore, God’s plan was like God; it was divine. God’s plan became flesh when God impregnated Mary.
“and the word was with God.” This is strange language to us, so it is important to know that it was not strange to the Jews. While we would say a person “has wisdom” or “is wise” it was a common way of speaking among the Jewish people to say a word, or knowledge, or wisdom, was “with” a person. For example, the Hebrew text of Proverbs 2:1 speaks of the commandments being “with” a person, and so does Proverbs 7:1. Proverbs 11:2 speaks of wisdom being “with” the humble, not just the humble “having wisdom” or “being wise” and Proverbs 13:10 says wisdom is “with” people who take advice.
Job spoke to God about His actions, and spoke of what God hid in His heart, and then Job said, “I know that this [God’s secret plans and purposes] is with you” (Job 10:13; the Hebrew text says “with you” although it's not translated that way in many English versions). We would say “I know you have these things” but the Hebrews said “I know these things are with you.” Job also spoke of what God desired, and concluded that “many such things [that God desires and that are appointed] are with him” (Job 23:14). Job 27:11 also speaks of things being “with” God.
When God gave the Ten Commandments, Moses said that God had come to test the people and also so that the fear of God would be “with them” (as per the Hebrew text). We today would never say “so that the fear of God will be with you” as if the fear of God was another entity somehow together with the people, we today would simply say “so that you will fear God.” The Jews used the same “with” language in the Bible and in other writings as well.
Once we understand the logos in John 1:1 to be God’s purpose and plan, we can see that if John 1:1 was written in today’s English, we would likely say something like “In the beginning was the plan, and God had that plan, and what God was the plan was.” We would not say that the plan was “with God.” But the ancient Jews had said knowledge and wisdom were “with” people for millennia, and for them to speak that way was perfectly natural. However, if we today are going to understand the prologue of John (John 1:1-18), it is imperative that we understand that logos is a masculine noun and it is personified in the Prologue. Wisdom and the logos were personified in the literature of the Jews from long before the time that John wrote, and that influenced how he wrote the prologue of John. Personification was widely used in Jewish literature. For example, Proverbs portrays Wisdom as a woman helping God with His creation of the world (Proverbs 8:22-31). John 1:1 is not portraying a preincarnate Christ being with God. That would have been a nonsensical concept to the ancient unbelieving Jews and Greeks—remember, John was writing to get people to believe (John 20:30-31)—it was portraying that God used wisdom and a plan in restoring mankind to Himself, and that logos was a “plan” made perfect sense to those ancient unbelievers.
“and what God was, the word was.” This phrase is stating that the Word has the attributes of God, such as being true, trustworthy, etc. It makes perfect sense that if the Word is the expression of God, then it has attributes of God. Although almost every English Bible translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as “and the Word was God.” and it should not be translated that way. To understand that, we first should be aware of how the Greek text of the New Testament was written and how the Greeks used the word theos “God” or “god.”
Although we make a distinction between “God” with a capital “G” and “god” with a lowercase “g” the original text could not do that. The original text of both the Old and the New Testament was written in all capital letters, so in Greek, both “God” and “god” were “GOD” (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS). This meant the person reading the Scripture had to pay close attention to the context. When our modern English versions mention “the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), one way we know that the word “god” refers to Satan is because it is spelled with a lowercase “g.” But if our versions read in all capitals like the ancient Greek text and said, “THE GOD OF THIS AGE” then how would we know who this “GOD” was? We would have to discover who he was from the context. The people reading the early Greek texts had to become very sensitive to the context to properly understand the Bible. An unintended consequence of modern capitalization, punctuation, and spacing in the text is that it has made the modern reader much less aware of and sensitive to the context.
What the word “GOD” referred to in any given context was further complicated by the fact that, as any good Greek lexicon will show, the Greek word theos (#2316 θεός) was used to refer to both gods and goddesses, or was a general name for any deity, or was used of a representative of God, and was even used of people of high authority such as rulers or judges. The Greeks did not use the word “GOD” like we do, to refer to just one single Supreme Being with no other being sharing the name. The Greeks were polytheistic and had many gods with different positions and authority, and rulers and judges who represented the gods or who were themselves of high authority, and theos was used of all of those. Some of the authorities in the Bible who are referred to as ΘΕΟΣ include the Devil (2 Corinthians 4:4), lesser gods (1 Corinthians 8:5), and men with great authority (John 10:34-35; Acts 12:22).
When we are trying to discover what GOD (ΘΕΟΣ; THEOS) is referring to in a verse, the context is always the final arbiter. However, we do get some help in that it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “GOD” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this. The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1, which has two occurrences of theos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the theos, and the Word was theos.” Since the definite article (“the”) is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God”) the most natural meaning of the word would be that it referred to the quality of God, i.e., “divine” “god-like” or “like God.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt, who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase “the logos was divine.”
As we said above, although the wording of the Greek text of John 1:1 certainly favors the translation “and what God was, the Word was” over the translation “the Word was God” the context and scope of Scripture must be the final arbiter. In this case, we have help from the verse itself in the phrase “the Word was with God.” The Word (logos) cannot both be “with” God and “be” God. That is nonsensical. It is similar to us being able to discern that Jesus Christ is not God from reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15, which say that Jesus is the image of God. One cannot be both the image of the object and the object itself. We Christians must become aware of the difference between a genuine mystery and a contradiction. In his book, Against Calvinism, Roger Olson writes: “We must point out here the difference between mystery and contradiction; the former is something that cannot be fully explained to or comprehended by the human mind, whereas the latter is just nonsense—two concepts that cancel each other out and together make an absurdity.” The truth in the verse is actually simple: the logos, the plan, purpose, and wisdom of God, was with God, and what God was (i.e., holy, true, pure, righteous, etc.) his logos was too.
First The word is proven to be Jesus Christ
Rev 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
You have not shown it is out of context. You ignored the fact one of the testators is God himself, and you have ignored the fact Jesus confirmed the statement.
Thus you ignore each verse.
Scripture, however, clearly identifies Jesus as God as well as man.
John 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
and the Word was God.
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
You will note both God and the Word are mentioned.
The word is the subject because it has the article.
Eberhard Nestle et al., The Greek New Testament (27th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), Jn 1:1.
The word was God is the accurate translation.
John 1:18 (NASB 95) — 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 20:28–29 (NASB 95) — 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him,
“Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
You have ignored the fact Jesus confirmed and blessed the statement.
Matthew 1:23 (NASB 95) — 23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”
Acts 2:36–39 (NASB 95) — 36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
Acts 20:28 (NASB 95) — 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Titus 2:13 (NASB 95) — 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
Christ is identified as God and savior by the Granville Sharp Rule.
Granville Sharp Rule
Granville Sharp rule. n. A grammatical dictum stating that when two or more personal, singular substantives (not proper names) are joined by καί and governed by a single article, they refer to the same person. This type of construction is often signified by TSKS.
Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek, Granville Sharp Rule (New Testament Greek), p 64
Hebrews 1:3 (NASB 95) — 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Hebrews 1:8 (NASB 95) — 8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
You ignored the fact one of the testators is God himself
Hebrews 1:9 (NASB 95) — 9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
Hebrews 1:10 (NASB 95) — 10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
God himself testifies Christ laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of his handscreated
2 Peter 1:1 (NASB 95) — 1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Again Christ is identified as God and savior by the Granville Sharp Rule.
1 John 5:20 (NASB 95) — 20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB 95) — 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Philippians 2:6–7 (NASB 95) — 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
Christ existed in the form of God
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB 95) — 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
Immanuel—God with us.
Isaiah 9:6 (NASB 95) — 6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
The Old Testament testifies his name shall be called mighty God
Colossians 2:9 (NASB 95) — 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
And all the fullness of deity dwells within Christ
Is it okay for me to get all the information I need to be a Christian, 100% from the Bible Alone?
Which is Paramount, the words in the Holy Bible or the different new message or good news, I get from the Holy Spirit? 2 Timothy 3:16, John 17:17, 2 Peter 1:21, Romans 15:4
if you are Timothy, you can be ready for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness of people. If not, you should be learning from Christian teachers.
That's really funny, I list some scriptures from the word of God, and what do you give me your opinion.
First of all, you missed the context of 2 Tim 3:16. That should be a clue of how you are not ready to interpret scripture.That's really funny, I list some scriptures from the word of God, and what do you give me your opinion.
Of course Rom 15:4 does not say you will read the scriptures correctly either. Plus, those scriptures were primarily the OT passages to guide them. I did not have to look at all the passages to see how you had gotten off track.
This then means you need to learn from qualified teachers rather than make up the meaning of text on your own.
