Your Views on The Trinity

[Capbook]

Revelation 1:17,18 is still there, even though you don't seem to see it. The First and the Last is talking, he said he was dead, but is now alive. Means he died. You do realize that Jesus died don't you? The First and the Last is a human who died, not an immortal God who died.

Revelation 1
17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

I see it, that is why I've responded that if that is your interpretation, you also make the Alpha and Omega died. (Rev 22:13)
I believe it's hard for you to read the text below as you always missed to counter argue.

Rev 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

 

[FreeInChrist]

The Catholics in my view have never been right about anything. One of my gauges is if the Catholics believe it. Then that's a huge red flag to start me looking at it. One of my Bible teachers put it this way...

Christians believe their sins are forgiven when they are born again up to that point, but must run to God to confess and repent their new sins every time they sin after becoming a Christian.

The Christian bible says..... (NOTE... this is not the RCC or EOC bibles)

What Jesus did with our sins YET... What we still do

Bore our sins in His body on the cross. 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body
on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to
righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Became sin for us so we might become the 1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know righteousness of God. that everyone who practices righteousness also has been born of Him (But John never says we stop all sinning)
2 Cor 5:21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on
our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness 1 John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, of God in Him. because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Took away the penalty of guilt and of sin once and for all. 1 John 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
Hebrews 10:
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time,
SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE
MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those
who are sanctified.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cleansed us from all unrighteousness when we confess. Gal 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one so that you
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and may not do the things that you please.
righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness.

Jesus fully paid for every sin and broke its dominion over us (Romans 6:14), so we are no longer slaves to sin and we hate it more every day — but until glory, the presence of sin still dwells in our flesh, and we still need His blood and grace every single day (1 John 1:7–9).”

That is the consistent teaching of Paul, John, Peter, and Jesus Himself.
NOW @Peterlag ... to wrap this up.

If we sin after we are born again, are we to confess and repent???
Yes, absolutely.
The New Testament is crystal clear .... even after we are born again.... when we do sin we MUST confess and repent.... and God keeps on cleansing and forgiving us.

Here are the DIRECT commands and promises written to already-saved Christians.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (This to believers who have already been born of Him)
1 John 2:
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (Already saved)

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. ( This is to brothers in the church)

Acts 8:22 “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.
This to Simon who had already believed and been baptised. A saved person who sinned afterwards,

Revelation 2-3 Seven letters to born-again churches. Five out of seven are told "Repent" (2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19)
So, even after we are born again, we still sin, and God commands us to confess those sins and turn away from them (repent). That is how we keep walking in the light and stay in fellowship with Him. ( 1 John 1:7-9)
Being born again gives us a new heart that hates sin and wants to obey ....it does not make us incapable of sinning this side of heaven. Nor excuse us from confessing and repenting.

 

[Runningman]

I see it, that is why I've responded that if that is your interpretation, you also make the Alpha and Omega died. (Rev 22:13)
I believe it's hard for you to read the text below as you always missed to counter argue.

Rev 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

The Bible says "I am the First and the Last... I was dead..." and me saying the First and Last died isn't an interpretation. I am just repeating to you what the Bible says. I think we are getting somewhere, though. Some often interpret death to not mean literal death, but only separation from God. So do you believe the First and the Last was separated from God or that the First and the Last was literally dead in the plainest meaning of the word? I can see either option being a problem for trinitarianism so how do you interpret it?

Yes, any titles Jesus has whether Alpha or Omega, First and Last, beginning and end, etc and him dying don't refer to God dying. We must keep always have a constant in which God is always alive in every sense. God is the God of the living after all.

 

[civic]

If Thomas had called Jesus “my God” he would have been the only person in the Bible to ever have addressed Jesus that way.

• • Not Peter.
  • Not John.
  • Not Mary.
  • Not Stephen.
  • Not Paul.
  • Not a single believer in Acts.

Which raises the obvious question:
If Jesus was God and His followers knew it, why does no one else ever address Him as such?
John 20:28 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “My Lord and my God” can easily be understood that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

um who else besides Jesus addressed God as " My Father " ?

BTW- just because something is only said one time in the bible does not make it false.

using your own reasoning then John 17:3 cannot be true since its the only time the Father is called the only true God.

next fallacy.

next strawman.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Runningman]

If Thomas had called Jesus “my God” he would have been the only person in the Bible to ever have addressed Jesus that way.

• • Not Peter.
  • Not John.
  • Not Mary.
  • Not Stephen.
  • Not Paul.
  • Not a single believer in Acts.

Which raises the obvious question:
If Jesus was God and His followers knew it, why does no one else ever address Him as such?
John 20:28 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. “My Lord and my God” can easily be understood that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God despite Trinitarian claims that he had.

In other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and they crucified him." The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “Prophet” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow got that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

This is sound reasoning. I would also add, if Jesus is God then why did Thomas not seem to know that until after Jesus was resurrected? It doesn't seem that they thought Jesus would resurrect himself, but rather receive a resurrection from God.

As John 2:22 says in the passive voice, "After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this." John is on record stating that the disciples (which would include Thomas) remembered what Jesus had said about receiving a resurrection, not being the actor performing the resurrection.

So since the disciples didn't believe Jesus would resurrect himself and all of the other miracles Jesus did for years already weren't convincing of him being deity, then why would Thomas suddenly confuse Jesus with being God only after being resurrected?

With all of the other points you've provided and the Greek not providing the kind of grammar we should expect to see in an address from one person to another in John 20:28, I would go with a different interpretation. They should make the word God in John 20:28 a lowercase god. Humans can be referred to as god, but not God. There is fair Biblical precedent for that or Thomas could have essentially just been exclaiming. Many people say "Oh God" when they see something shocking.

 

[charismaticlady]

John 14:9 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The key to understanding "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" is to know that the phrase “seen the Father” does not refer to seeing with one’s physical eyes but figuratively to “knowing the Father.” Jesus knew God, not because he lived and talked with God in heaven before his birth on earth, but because God revealed Himself more clearly to Jesus than He had to anyone else. Jesus made this clear in other teachings when he said “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does…” (John 5:20).

In both Hebrew and Greek, words that are translated “see” throughout the Bible often mean “to know or realize.” The Hebrew word ra’ah is used for both seeing with the eyes and knowing something, or perceiving it (Genesis 16:4; Exodus 32:1; Numbers 20:29). Similarly, the Greek word horaō (ὁράω) translated “see” in John 1:18, 6:46; and 3 John 1:11, can mean “to see with the eyes” or “to see with the mind, to perceive, to know.” Even in English, one of the definitions for “see” is “to know or understand.” For example, when two people are discussing something, one might say to the other, “I see what you mean.”

The usage of “see” as it pertains to “knowing” is found in many places in the New Testament. For example, Jesus said to Philip, “…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;…” (John 14:9). Here again the word “see” is used to indicate “knowing.” Anyone who knew Jesus (not just those who “saw” him) would know the Father. In fact, Jesus had made that clear two verses earlier when he said to Philip, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you know him, and have seen him” (John 14:7). In this verse, Jesus says that those who know him have “seen” the Father.

How do you interpret John 1:1?

 

[Peterlag]

This is sound reasoning. I would also add, if Jesus is God then why did Thomas not seem to know that until after Jesus was resurrected? It doesn't seem that they thought Jesus would resurrect himself, but rather receive a resurrection from God.

As John 2:22 says in the passive voice, "After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this." John is on record stating that the disciples (which would include Thomas) remembered what Jesus had said about receiving a resurrection, not being the actor performing the resurrection.

So since the disciples didn't believe Jesus would resurrect himself and all of the other miracles Jesus did for years already weren't convincing of him being deity, then why would Thomas suddenly confuse Jesus with being God only after being resurrected?

With all of the other points you've provided and the Greek not providing the kind of grammar we should expect to see in an address from one person to another in John 20:28, I would go with a different interpretation. They should make the word God in John 20:28 a lowercase god. Humans can be referred to as god, but not God. There is fair Biblical precedent for that or Thomas could have essentially just been exclaiming. Many people say "Oh God" when they see something shocking.

If Thomas knew Jesus was God. Then what was it Thomas was ever doubting about?

 

[Peterlag]

How do you interpret John 1:1?

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

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.

A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."

 

[Peterlag]

hmm. do i accept Peterlag's weak argument or scriptures? I think I will trust what John 1 says and what Thomas said more that Peterlag. Is something wrong with my choice?

Yes, something is wrong with your choice since Peter's posts are never weak.

 

[charismaticlady]

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

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.

A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."

Here is Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

Who is I AM?

 

[Peterlag]

Here is Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

Who is I AM?

John 8:58 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. "I am" was a common phrase and it isn't the name of anyone. At the last supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."

 

[Peterlag]

The Trinitarian quotes Romans 1:20 to prove there's a Trinity Godhead...

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

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.

The word "Godhead" in the King James that he quoted does not mean the Trinity. The first three translations that I looked at have it as followers...

New International Version:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

New Living Translation:
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

English Standard Version:
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

[FreeInChrist]

If Thomas knew Jesus was God. Then what was it Thomas was ever doubting about?

Well doubting Peter....

"Thomas doubted Jesus when he refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he could see and touch Jesus's wounds. This event is described in the Gospel of John, where he is often referred to as "Doubting Thomas" for his skepticism."

Doubting @Peterlag ... this is suspiciously similar to someone I know who refuses to believe if they cant see it.


My scriptures say in John 20:24-29

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”

27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

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.”

IOW... Thomas would not believe the others until Jesus actually had to show him his scars from the crucifixion, and only THEN would Thomas believe He had been risen from the dead.

Even Jesus chided Thomas for unbelief when He said to him .....
“Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

This is quite similar to someone you know well.... yourself

Now... How about you posting these same scriptures from your bible for comparison.

 

[Runningman]

How do you interpret John 1:1?

Right. Thomas was just doubting that Jesus had been resurrected and was still alive after witnessing what happened to him. I think most people would naturally be skeptical that someone was walking around casually after being impaled by a spear, flogged, and crucified. Thomas was kinda late to the party though or maybe not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[mikesw]

If Thomas knew Jesus was God. Then what was it Thomas was ever doubting about?

That is showing ignorance of the whole situation of the disciples. None of them really followed critical and unique details of who Jesus is. It was quite unique that Peter identified him as the Messiah early on. We then see that Thomas as the doubter, as verified earlier about his sarcastic remarks (such as "let us go with him that we too might die") became aware not only of Jesus being resurrected but also of Jesus as God. Anything less than such recognition demonstrates that person to be a doubter after reading such evidence as that about Thomas.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The Trinitarian quotes Romans 1:20 to prove there's a Trinity Godhead...

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

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.

The word "Godhead" in the King James that he quoted does not mean the Trinity. The first three translations that I looked at have it as followers...

New International Version:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

New Living Translation:
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

English Standard Version:
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Anyone who would refer anything to Jimmy's bible knows beans about the subject.

But if you want to get technical.... there are other translations that use Godhead.... (I prefer umbrella)...Here are 16

The term "Godhead" appears in the Tyndale New Testament (1525), the Geneva Bible (1560/1599), and the King James Version (1611). These translations use "Godhead" to translate different Greek words related to the essence of God.


King James Bible
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

New King James Version
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

Amplified Bible
For in Him all the fullness of Deity (the Godhead) dwells in bodily form [completely expressing the divine essence of God].

American Standard Version
for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

English Revised Version
for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

Webster's Bible Translation
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

Literal Translations
Literal Standard Version
because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,

Young's Literal Translation
because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

Catholic Translations
Douay-Rheims Bible
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;

Translations from Aramaic
Lamsa Bible
For in him is embodied all the fulness of the Godhead.

NT Translations
Anderson New Testament
for in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhood bodily.

Godbey New Testament
because in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

Haweis New Testament
for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;

Worrell New Testament
because in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;

 

[charismaticlady]

John 8:58 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. "I am" was a common phrase and it isn't the name of anyone. At the last supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."

If it was just a "common phrase" why did the Pharisees react so viciously that they wanted to stone Him? It was because Jesus was claiming to be God.

 

[charismaticlady]

Right. Thomas was just doubting that Jesus had been resurrected and was still alive after witnessing what happened to him. I think most people would naturally be skeptical that someone was walking around casually after being impaled by a spear, flogged, and crucified. Thomas was kinda late to the party though or maybe not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I think you misread the text. I said, John 1:1

 

[Runningman]

I think you misread the text. I said, John 1:1

Ah, yes! Sorry I meant to reply to @Peterlag

 

[mikesw]

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

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.

A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."

the Logos is used as metalepsis. The aspects of logos are built up beginning with Proverbs 8 and further developed as logos by Philo. That which is called logos then is a place holder for the One working within the "we" of Genesis 1 in creation. This One who is identified with Logos, for lack of being named among humans before, was with God and was God and became flesh as Jesus. But the hyperliteralism if unitarians puts the message of John 1 beyond their reach. The unitarian converts the One into a the mere "thing" as being just "words."