Trinitarian Training

[mikesw]

The word of God refers to God's spoken words. No one agrees with you, either. No theologian or translator in their right mind will capitalize "word" in the Old Testament. The "Word" isn't actually a person, but rather God's spoken words in this context. God speaks and it happens, it's the same way He created the heavens and earth all alone.

Isaiah 55:11
So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

you do great confusion of using one word "word" in all the wrong ways. Your attempt does not deny the Word as God in the OT.

 

[mikesw]

No. The Word in 1John 1:1-3 is John writing about what the Word literally is and what John said about the Word in John 1 is poetic in Hebrew fashion and there is nothing to capitalize about it. John is writing based on the precedent that the word of God is personified in Hebrew poetry, but not a literal person.

The word of God personified in Hebrew poetry:

Psalm 33:6​

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.​

​

Psalm 107:20​

He sent out his word and healed them; he rescued them from the grave.​

​

Psalm 147:15​

He sends his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly.​

The word of God has divine attributes, but is not God:

Isaiah 55:10-11​

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,​

And do not return there without watering the earth​

And making it bear and sprout,​

And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;​

​

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;​

It will not return to Me empty,​

Without accomplishing what I desire,​

And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.​

​

Isaiah 40:8​

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever.”​

​

Psalm 119:105​

Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.​

It would be extremely difficult to make your "the word is god" in a literal sense work. The entire body of Scripture about the word of God contradicts your premise. Not only is there 1John 1:1-3 that proves your theology about God as false, but when Jesus and the Word of God are used in close proximity of one another, they are not the same person or thing. They are entirely distinct.

Revelation 1:2​

who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.​

​

Revelation 1:9​

I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance that are in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus. ​

​

Revelation 20:4​

Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.​

You get confused by assuming "word" has only one application. Go back to the drawing board.

You almost have a perfect record of misinterpretation. You erred by correctly explaining 1 John 1.

 

[Runningman]

You do great denials.

No mention of an incarnation in John 1 or elsewhere.

 

[Runningman]

you do great confusion of using one word "word" in all the wrong ways. Your attempt does not deny the Word as God in the OT.

The Word is spoken words according to Scripture. You don't get it because everything in the Bible contradicts your philosophy about John 1:1. You still haven't figured out the Word is a thing with divine attributes yet. The Word is has qualities of God, but is not God. Make sense?

 

[Runningman]

You get confused by assuming "word" has only one application. Go back to the drawing board.

You almost have a perfect record of misinterpretation. You erred by correctly explaining 1 John 1.

The entire Old Testament demonstrates the Word not being God. Your prison is denial.

 

[mikesw]

No mention of an incarnation in John 1 or elsewhere.

you must be reading a Buddhist bible instead.

 

[mikesw]

The entire Old Testament demonstrates the Word not being God. Your prison is denial.

I do not know how you missed Gen 15:1-5. Are you blind or just do not want to acknowledge what it says? Maybe you can explain what you see there so people can see at what level you are able to interpret things

 

[mikesw]

The Word is spoken words according to Scripture. You don't get it because everything in the Bible contradicts your philosophy about John 1:1. You still haven't figured out the Word is a thing with divine attributes yet. The Word is has qualities of God, but is not God. Make sense?

You asked for OT passages. I have provided passages that show the Word is distinct but the same as Yahweh. You have not reasonably given an alternative and logical interpretation of that so as to deny the Word as the divine God.

 

[Runningman]

you must be reading a Buddhist bible instead.

I do not know how you missed Gen 15:1-5. Are you blind or just do not want to acknowledge what it says? Maybe you can explain what you see there so people can see at what level you are able to interpret things

You asked for OT passages. I have provided passages that show the Word is distinct but the same as Yahweh. You have not reasonably given an alternative and logical interpretation of that so as to deny the Word as the divine God.

The Word as a person doesn't exist in the Old Testament. I am not of any commentators who agree with you either.

Didn't I just also show you a lot of verses about the word of God being personified or having qualities of God, but not God at all?

 

[mikesw]

The Word as a person doesn't exist in the Old Testament. I am not of any commentators who agree with you either.

Didn't I just also show you a lot of verses about the word of God being personified or having qualities of God, but not God at all?

you just repeated your improper exegetical process. You do not take a word like "word" and assume that that word controls the meaning of the context it is found in. The context is critical for most people and is not canceled by the use of broad-use words like "word" in other passages. You just do not have a valid argument against Gen 15:1-6.

To be clear, the Word in verse 4 brought Abram outside and made a promise to him (v5). That is hardly an inanimate thing that does that. You try too hard to reject Christ.

You were the one who asked for such passage to be shared but when it is shared you deny it like you deny who Christ is everywhere else in scripture.

 

[Runningman]

you just repeated your improper exegetical process. You do not take a word like "word" and assume that that word controls the meaning of the context it is found in. The context is critical for most people and is not canceled by the use of broad-use words like "word" in other passages. You just do not have a valid argument against Gen 15:1-6.

To be clear, the Word in verse 4 brought Abram outside and made a promise to him (v5). That is hardly an inanimate thing that does that. You try too hard to reject Christ.

You were the one who asked for such passage to be shared but when it is shared you deny it like you deny who Christ is everywhere else in scripture.

Jesus doesn't exist in the Old Testament. Even if he did, you don't have any proof from the Scripture. Arguing that the word of God coming to people is a person when it is not introduced as a person is nonsense and your opinion. You got nothing. Deal with it.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus doesn't exist in the Old Testament. Even if he did, you don't have any proof from the Scripture. Arguing that the word of God coming to people is a person when it is not introduced as a person is nonsense and your opinion. You got nothing. Deal with it.

How come you confuse your terminology without exception? No one says the incarnation of God as Jesus means that Jesus exists in human form in the OT. If you cannot even recognize the nature of the discussion, there is no way you can comprehend scripture or argue against the pre-existence of the one we now have in named form as Jesus. Why do we have to repeatedly correct that error of yours as if it is the movie Ground Hog Day?
I guess you feel like you can win the argument if you abuse terminology.

 

[Runningman]

How come you confuse your terminology without exception? No one says the incarnation of God as Jesus means that Jesus exists in human form in the OT. If you cannot even recognize the nature of the discussion, there is no way you can comprehend scripture or argue against the pre-existence of the one we now have in named form as Jesus. Why do we have to repeatedly correct that error of yours as if it is the movie Ground Hog Day?
I guess you feel like you can win the argument if you abuse terminology.

I think you haven't come to grips with the fact that you have lost the debate. We aren't so much proving you wrong anymore, just breaking down the barriers of stubborn pride and rebellion. You will eventually get exhausted. There seems to be no other course of action than to just overwhelm you.

Why is Jesus not the word of God in the below verses?

Revelation 1:2
who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance that are in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus.

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

[mikesw]

I think you haven't come to grips with the fact that you have lost the debate. We aren't so much proving you wrong anymore, just breaking down the barriers of stubborn pride and rebellion. You will eventually get exhausted.

I'm here to help teach those who cannot understand scripture on their own. My patience has been working for you for over a year and a half now.

There seems to be no other course of action than to just overwhelm you.

Why is Jesus not the word of God in the below verses?

Revelation 1:2
who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance that are in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus.

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

You are trying to say that these passages in Revelation deny what John 1 says. Then you neglect where Jesus is called the Word of God in Rev 19:13. So even where you try to deny Jesus as the Word, Revelation still show that is a name he is called. So I'm confused where your argument is. You should know that a single word does not automatically carry its context from one passage to another. That also applies to "word of God" not being a name in Rev 1:2 but being a name in Rev 19:13. I suppose I can see how a hyperliteralist cannot discern scripture properly.

 

[Runningman]

I'm here to help teach those who cannot understand scripture on their own. My patience has been working for you for over a year and a half now.


You are trying to say that these passages in Revelation deny what John 1 says. Then you neglect where Jesus is called the Word of God in Rev 19:13. So even where you try to deny Jesus as the Word, Revelation still show that is a name he is called. So I'm confused where your argument is. You should know that a single word does not automatically carry its context from one passage to another. That also applies to "word of God" not being a name in Rev 1:2 but being a name in Rev 19:13. I suppose I can see how a hyperliteralist cannot discern scripture properly.

Weren't you just using an example of the "word of God" in the Old Testament to say that's Jesus pre-existing? Ok, the word of God is in Revelation as well and it's not Jesus. Where your arguments take a hit is that they are not consistent. There are many things in the Bible that directly contradict your premises, which I keep showing you, and they're all still there. You haven't explained any of it away.

 

[synergy]

Why is Jesus not the word of God in the below verses?

Revelation 1:2
who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance that are in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and my testimony about Jesus.

Revelation 20:4
Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

This exposes your dirt-poor understanding of Koine Greek.

Every one of the verses you quoted does differentiate between the written/spoken word of God (Bible, for example) (λογον) and Jesus. You do know the difference between a Bible and Jesus, right?

John 1:14 mentions λογος who was the Pre-Incarnate Word of God and who now tabernacles as Jesus Christ. The λογος is clearly described as a Person in Rev 19:11-16, and in many parts of the OT, which Unitarians always conveniently skip over.

If one is not careful with Koine Greek, one ends up making a total mess of things as evidenced by the mess that Unitarians are responsible for.

 

[synergy]

Weren't you just using an example of the "word of God" in the Old Testament to say that's Jesus pre-existing? Ok, the word of God is in Revelation as well and it's not Jesus. Where your arguments take a hit is that they are not consistent. There are many things in the Bible that directly contradict your premises, which I keep showing you, and they're all still there. You haven't explained any of it away.

Let's take it step by step. Do you believe John when he wrote "the Word was God"? Yes or no?

 

[Runningman]

This exposes your dirt-poor understanding of Koine Greek.

Every one of the verses you quoted does differentiate between the written/spoken word of God (Bible, for example) (λογον) and Jesus. You do know the difference between a Bible and Jesus, right?

John 1:14 mentions λογος who was the Pre-Incarnate Word of God and who now tabernacles as Jesus Christ. The λογος is clearly described as a Person in Rev 19:11-16, and in many parts of the OT, which Unitarians always conveniently skip over.

If one is not careful with Koine Greek, one ends up making a total mess of things as evidenced by the mess that Unitarians are responsible for.

I have to just laugh. You talk about having a dirt poor understanding of koine Greek and then you demonstrate you couldn't translate Greek to find your way out of a paper bag. There is no such thing as a "pre-incarnate word of God" in the Greek. Read 1 John 1:1-3 that proves that the Word is not literally a person. It's called personification. For example, Mike learned that the word of God is something that comes out of God's mouth because it's spoke words. Easy to understand right?

 

[Runningman]

Let's take it step by step. Do you believe John when he wrote "the Word was God"? Yes or no?

No he didn't write that. That's called an English translation, which I have proven dozens of times to be a false one.

 

[synergy]

I have to just laugh. You talk about having a dirt poor understanding of koine Greek and then you demonstrate you couldn't translate Greek to find your way out of a paper bag.

You still can't differentiate between the written/spoken word of God (Bible, for example) (λογον) and Jesus? You are lost, my friend.

There is no such thing as a "pre-incarnate word of God" in the Greek.

Where did I say that the word "Pre-incarnate" was in the Greek? You just love your strawmen. You need to understand what the word ἐσκήνωσεν means in John 1:14.

Read 1 John 1:1-3 that proves that the Word is not literally a person. It's called personification. For example, Mike learned that the word of God is something that comes out of God's mouth because it's spoke words. Easy to understand right?

Why are you running away from Rev 19:11-16? Let's tackle that first and then I'll be more than happy to continue to discuss your ignorance of Greek concerning 1 John 1:1-3.