John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[APAK]

A point I have made over the years is that the reason trinitarians MUST believe "word" refers to Christ is because the Biblical support for the man-is-god thesis is otherwise so weak.

Therefore, they must resort to taking figurative language and insisting only a trinitarian interpretation is valid. At the same time, they are forced to completely ignore explicit verses that go against their doctrine, like 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 as @Rich R just pointed out and as I did in the thread, arguing that the juxtaposition of God from Jesus in so many verses may be the strongest argument against trinitarianism. IF Jesus were God, there would not be 1 single verse like 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.' It would read their preferred 'Father' loved the world ...

So, I don't think a retreat into Greek is necessary. (Of course, I am biased since foreign language is not my strong suit). John 1:1 is figurative language usage. Today we have an expression, 'my word is my bond.' Here 'word' is also used figuratively to refer to one having integrity, of doing what one says. Likewise, God's words are his bond. You can take it to the bank. God said, 'let there be light' and there was light. God said in Deut 18:15-18 that he would put his words (plural) into one of the people, which is what he did in Jesus at v14, So the Word became human. This fulfilled prophecy.

The cognitive dissonance of trinitarians is so complete, they become unglued when I point out that Scripture does not say God became incarnate but that his word became incarnate, his words (plural) put into the mouth of a prophet he chooses (raises up) among the people. The reason they become unglued is precisely because it is a better interpretation, has more Scriptural support and leaves them no where to go to better support their 4th century man-made dogma.

And this brings up a profound point of logic. Because there is no verse that explicitly says Jesus is God, they are forced to rely on implication. However, a true implication is a necessary consequence, not merely a possible consequence of the sentence. And the analysis I provide reveals the verse is NOT truly implying what they want it to. All they can do is deny other interpretations, other implications EVEN THOUGH stronger than the inference they want to draw.

I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words (plural) in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. Deut 18:18 (emphasis added)

Very well said in most parts. Man have you progressed in knowledge and the articulation of it.

 

[Wrangler]

Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" 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.)

Only this year were my eyes opened to the manipulation of capitalization by trinitarian translators. And I have @Aunty Jane to thank for showing me the light. A full understanding juxtaposes 4 words:

1. god
2. lord
3. father
4. YHWH

4. The word YHWH is translated into English Jehovah. @Aunty Jane pointed out the sacred words of Jesus, where he says 'hallowed be thy name' is made a mockery by trinitarian translators who removed the Creator's name some 7,000x. She added, no author would be happy if his name was removed from his book. I look at this deception as a primary motivator for the Jehovah Witnesses denomination and a compelling motivation it is.

As a bit of a side note, there is no ‘great I am’ in Scripture and neither God nor Jesus ever actually said it. In answering Moses’ question, God 1st articulated his eternal nature. (This is why the VOICE translation uses the term ‘eternal’ for god.) There is something lost in the Hebrew to English translation of the indefinite verb of existing, to be. Who Moses is speaking to in Ex 3:14 is eternal, which differentiated him from other known gods of various regions. However, being eternal is a property of existence, not a personal name.

The Complete Jewish Bible renders the Hebrew as precisely as possible to English to ‘I am/will be what I am/will be.’ But thank god there is the definitive verse 15.

13 Moshe said to God, “Look, when I appear before the people of Isra’el and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you’; and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?” 14 God said to Moshe, “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be],” and added, “Here is what to say to the people of Isra’el: ‘Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.’” 15 God said further to Moshe, “Say this to the people of Isra’el: ‘Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai], the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz’chak and the God of Ya‘akov, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation.
Exodus 3:14-15, CJB​

God explicitly tells Moses his name is Yahweh (Adonai), this is his name forever, and how he is to he remembered. Trinitarian translators made us forget or prevented us from ever knowing God’s hallowed name that Jesus explicitly told us to keep holy.

The Suffering Servant who will redeem many, prophesied by Isaiah has a personal name, Jesus. God has a personal name that is hallowed and is not Jesus but Yahweh. NOTE: Ex 3:15 does not say in 1700 years, I’ll change my name or go by 2 names. And Ex 3:15 certainly does not say god will go by 3 names.

3. The word 'father' is a relational name. It is not the personal name of the Creator. It is merely how we, his children, should relate to him, as a loving father. Jesus is not called the son of the father. He is called the son of god.

2. Titles. The expression 'Son of God' is a title. Colossians 3:12 points out that we too are chosen by god, as Jesus was in Ps 2:7, today I have become your father. John 1:12 says that we too are sons and daughters of god. So, while Jesus was the only son of god, as all firstborns are, he is no longer the only son of god.

Trinitarian dogmatic translators whose doctrine seeks to blur what is clearly distinct, often render his name with the word, capitalized LORD with the dozens of lowercase ‘lords’, which Jesus is one. However, the word ‘lord’ is a title not a name, no matter what capitalization is used.

1. God. The name of man is not 'Man' and the name of god is not 'God.' Both man and god refer to general forms of life. Trinitarian dogmatic translators turn this general form of life word into a title and to differentiate among the many false gods. The lord god, creator of the universe has a personal name, YHWH (or Jehovah, if you please). And the name of the one true god is NOT Jesus.

The inherently contradictory false doctrine of the trinity has no where to hide.

 

[APAK]

Only this year were my eyes opened to the manipulation of capitalization by trinitarian translators. And I have @Aunty Jane
1. God. The name of man is not 'Man' and the name of god is not 'God.' Both man and god refer to general forms of life. Trinitarian dogmatic translators turn this general form of life word into a title and to differentiate among the many false gods. The lord god, creator of the universe has a personal name, YHWH (or Jehovah, if you please). And the name of the one true god is NOT Jesus.

The inherently contradictory false doctrine of the trinity has no where to hide.

Even the word 'Jesus' is a corruption. It is a Latinized Greek would added in by the RCCs to deliberately replace Yahshua or Yeshua and other variants. Even Joshua would be a closed equivalent. The MEANING of his name as well as his Father, YHWH is also all important. It must mean YHWH's servant saves.....Yah + shua => YHWH saves + with/by his servant

Note: YHWH not Yehov(w)ah is the real name. During the Babylonian captivity they made the vowels (Y+e for Y and o+w for W and ah for H)) in YHWH to stop speaking the sacred word YHWH.

 

[Wrangler]

Very well said in most parts. Man have you progressed in knowledge and the articulation of it.

Thank you! What I struggle with now is succinctly stating the phenomena of reading trinitarian doctrine into unitarian text. A logical implication is supposed to meet the standard of a necessary consequence, not merely a possible consequence.

If I say, 'my son gave me this,' it implies I have a son. It does not imply that I have multiple sons or a daughter.

If I say, 'my child gave me this,' it is only a possible consequence that I have a male or female child. To demand it be taken one way or the other goes beyond the general word usage. However, it is more than an implication that a person did the giving, as opposed to an animal.

What's more, is that ownership is explicit, my child. This is just as God said in Matthew 3:17. It is so funny when obtuse trinitarians deny it is God's voice in Matthew 3:17 and assert it is the voice of 'the Father' AS IF Jesus is called the son of the father. LOL

Going back to John 1:1 as I've said many times, likewise, it is more than an implication that words are WHAT's not WHO's. Words are what a Being uses to communicate. Using words is an attribute of a Being. The OT in Psalms say that God is a rock and his words are true. John is saying in a poetic way here that God word is his bond, his words can be relied on, he will do what he says in fulfilling prophecy.

It is less poetic but more precise to say In the beginning was the word of god, and the word of god was with God, and the word of god was God. A critical analysis reveals that words do not exist prior or contemporaneous with the Being who speaks the words. Speech, implies the existence of a speaker. More than an implication, speech implies the pre-existence of the speaker. But we know this time dependent function of a son, of a word spoken undermines trinitarianism. So, they are forced into mysticism; that somehow, EFFECTS exist simultaneously with CAUSE, words and sons literally exist simultaneously with the god who created them.

 

[Wrangler]

Even the word 'Jesus' is a corruption. ... The MEANING of his name as well as his Father, YHWH is also all important. It must mean YHWH's servant saves.....Yah + shua => YHWH saves + with/by his servant

Please elaborate on the idea that the name of the suffering servant means YHWH saves + with/by his servant. This is huge!

 

[Peterlag]

A point I have made over the years is that the reason trinitarians MUST believe "word" refers to Christ is because the Biblical support for the man-is-god thesis is otherwise so weak.

Therefore, they must resort to taking figurative language and insisting only a trinitarian interpretation is valid. At the same time, they are forced to completely ignore explicit verses that go against their doctrine, like 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 as @Rich R just pointed out and as I did in the thread, arguing that the juxtaposition of God from Jesus in so many verses may be the strongest argument against trinitarianism. IF Jesus were God, there would not be 1 single verse like 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.' It would read their preferred 'Father' loved the world ...

So, I don't think a retreat into Greek is necessary. (Of course, I am biased since foreign language is not my strong suit). John 1:1 is figurative language usage. Today we have an expression, 'my word is my bond.' Here 'word' is also used figuratively to refer to one having integrity, of doing what one says. Likewise, God's words are his bond. You can take it to the bank. God said, 'let there be light' and there was light. God said in Deut 18:15-18 that he would put his words (plural) into one of the people, which is what he did in Jesus at v14, So the Word became human. This fulfilled prophecy.

The cognitive dissonance of trinitarians is so complete, they become unglued when I point out that Scripture does not say God became incarnate but that his word became incarnate, his words (plural) put into the mouth of a prophet he chooses (raises up) among the people. The reason they become unglued is precisely because it is a better interpretation, has more Scriptural support and leaves them no where to go to better support their 4th century man-made dogma.

And this brings up a profound point of logic. Because there is no verse that explicitly says Jesus is God, they are forced to rely on implication. However, a true implication is a necessary consequence, not merely a possible consequence of the sentence. And the analysis I provide reveals the verse is NOT truly implying what they want it to. All they can do is deny other interpretations, other implications EVEN THOUGH stronger than the inference they want to draw.

I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words (plural) in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. Deut 18:18 (emphasis added)

They get around all of your logic by saying oh that was when Jesus was acting on his human side, or that was when Jesus was acting on his God side. So logic cannot be used when talking to them. Here's some data on how they think... The Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the divinely conceived Son of God. Jesus Christ is the fully human “Son of God” and not “God the Son.” For clarity’s sake, it's helpful to understand what the Trinity is. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the three of them are co-equal, co-eternal, and share the same essence and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man and that both the divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body may be widely believed, but is never stated in the Bible.

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and that is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical, which may be why Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

 

[APAK]

Please elaborate on the idea that the name of the suffering servant means YHWH saves + with/by his servant. This is huge!

Well I presented this topic to ScottA before and neglected to add the source material...anyway he's the discussion merging (E)Immanuel with Yahshua...

-----------------------------------
Emmanuel and Yahshua.....

Emmanuel does not mean that the destined Son of God is actually God, the one true Creator at all. One just cannot read the verse as for/from a modern reader's perspective of or for today. His Father is the source of all this work of his Son on the earth and the same today in heaven. All the names of Yahshua are drawn from and identify the source of his Son's identity, his Father, the one true God. Besides, his Father did create him and formed him to be the way he desired him to be.

Emmanuel: Who then is really with the people or 'us,' and then why is he with 'us'? Let me given a short commentary of the word (I)Emmanuel as applied to the Son of God in Matthew 1:23:

Emmanuel or Immanuel is written down in four places of scripture: Isaiah 7:14, 8:8, 10, and in Matthew 1:23.

From the Hebrew language it means in English, 'God (be)(is) with us. Intended primarily for or to a wide audience of people, not just to a specific person.

In the OT, this expression was a cry to God, usually during war, to intervene on behalf of his people and to destroy their enemies. For God to be and stay with his people to bring victory over their enemies.

In fact, the common salutation or greeting to each other today, like 'God be with you' is derived from this expression Immanuel. It was also used for a smaller audience and individuals. The sincere greeting for hope in the assurance that God would be at their side and intervene and protect them from their enemies and against evil.

It is the hope and cry to save or deliver them from despair, fear and death. That YHWH or God shall save them.

Mary's name to be given to her son is more precisely derived from Hebrew, Yahshua, or a close variant of it, and not Jesus. Jesus was never intended to be placed into scripture. It is a Latinized Greek word of no scriptural meaning or value. Joshua would be a valid name, meaning YHWH delivers or saves (to freedom). And he did of course, as his people inhabited the Promised land.

Now there is a direct relationship between Yahshua and Emmanuel.

Yahshua means 'Yah' or God from YHWH and 'Shua' connected directly with ‘Yah’ means, to save by bending down low as a helpless and humble servant who cries out for help.

Together then, Yahshua means Yah or God saves by or through his humble lowly servant.

Adding in the meaning of Emmanuel with Yahshua, we get:

Yahshua + Emmanuel = > God shall save his people from death, in and by his humble lowly servant.

Emmanuel thus amplified or provides more detail into the 'called' birth name of Yahshua and his nature.

YHWH was with his people, in his Son, indeed. No one has seen the Father, only the Son. The Father lives in Yahshua, deep in his bosom.

The Son of God executed the will of his Father. He reads and sees the thoughts, expressions and actions of his Father, whilst he was on earth and now in heaven. He is the executioner of his Father's will as the head of the church and soon to be official ruler of the new heaven and new earth.

Emmanuel indeed!
-----------------------------------------------------

 

[Kermos]

The part I like best is, "WAIT, THERE'S MORE:" As if that which proceeded wasn't enough to send condemn me to 10,000 deaths! :)

The Proverb is "Fools mock at sin" (Proverbs 14:9), and you mock at sin.

Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #329 in this thread), but you foolishly deny the Word of God.

In the same vein, Luke 1:1-2 identify Jesus is the Word, just like John 1:14 identifies Jesus is the Word (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #394 in this thread), so you intensely persist in your rejection of the Word of God.

You admit "the Word was God" (John 1:1) states that "the Word" is being referred to as "God" with your writing of 'the "word" was God Himself' (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #238 in this thread), but you wickedly proceeded to disassociate John's writing from John's writing in John chapter 1 where John declares Jesus is the Word (John 1:14) your heart evilly disassociates from Jesus being God "the Word was God" (John 1:1) since Jesus is the Word (John 1:14).

You publicly blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #421 in this thread) because you call the Holy Spirit a grotesque thing.

You convey that no person was ever created except for Adam in your complete denial of God's sovereignty (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #447 in this thread), yet the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14) declares "I formed you in the womb" (Jeremiah 1:5), so every person born has been created by God in the person's mother's womb. Jesus, truly God, exists eternally, so Jesus is uncreated.

In a similar vein, You convey that the words "formed" and "created" unrelated with respect to God's creation, yet "formed" and "created" are intimately related (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #449 in this thread) because "All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3) is John’s writing about Jesus causing everything to "be", that is, to exist for Jesus is the Word (shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #238 in this thread)

Continuing in a similar vein, The words "formed" and "created" are used synonymously in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7 for God's creative act of bringing Adam into existence (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #452 in this thread); therefore, God establishes the precedent for the words "formed" and "created" to show God's creative act. Man is created. Man is formed. God is uncreated. Jesus is YHWH God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14)

WAIT, THERE'S MORE:

You demonstrated a staggering level of linguistic errors, omissions, and/or misrepresentations as shown in the following links:

Despite being confronted by the Word of God clearly indicating that Jesus manifesting flesh as truly Man exists with the Word of God clearly indicating that Jesus as truly God (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1681 in this ChristianityBoard thread), you foolishly persist in your delusion of destruction that Jesus is not YHWH God.

moreover

You evilly use your flattering tongue to additionally spread lies about Jesus such as your heart's deception that Jesus is not God (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1554 in this ChristianityBoard thread), and you deny Apostolic testimony that Jesus is God by your wicked thoughts that clear verses "are ambiguous and don't say outright that Jesus is God", and you disrespect and dishonor the Holy Name of God showing your wolf in sheep's clothing internals.

moreover

You wickedly promote mere humans to being God while you evilly demote Jesus from being God (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #848 in this ChristianityBoard thread), and you deceptively try to confuse Jesus' special place as Immanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6).

moreover

In your heart, you subtract the Apostle Thomas saying "my God" to Lord Jesus (John 20:28) in the context of Thomas' usage (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #870 in this ChristianityBoard thread), so you deny Apostolic testimony.

moreover

You desperately try to change the Word of God into "that they also may be one with us" in John 17:21-22, so you are making yourself out to be greater than the Word of God (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1003 in this ChristianityBoard thread), so you nullify the Word of God, Jesus (John 1:1, John 1:14) in your heart by exalting your thoughts above God's thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).

moreover

You foolishly claim the Greek "en" can mean "with", yet "en" truly means "in", and your foolishness targets your thoughts that Jesus does not mean "one" when Jesus says "one" both in John 10:30 and John 17:21-22 (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1213 in this ChristianityBoard thread), so you are under the delusion that. Jesus is not one with the Father despite Jesus truthfully declaring of the Father and Himself "We are One" (John 17:22). You are fixated on the temporal instead of the eternal.

moreover

By your writing, your illogic is illuminated, your linguistic foolishness abounds, and you expose your fleshly natural state of being (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1269 in this ChristianityBoard thread); consequently, (1) you deny the personification references of the Father as well as the Christ in scripture, (2) you deny the true meaning of "one" as shown near the pie example, (3) you deny Jesus' sayings of "We are One" (John 17:22) by adulterating His words with your limiting words from your heart, (4) you deny the Spiritual Truth (John 14:6) by imposing your temporal treasure on Jesus, (5) you change the language of Ephesians 1:4, and (6) you deny Jesus is God despite the testimony of scripture indicating that Jesus is God.

moreover

In a bout of linguistic foolishness, you preach that "I will be" is correct for Exodus 3:14 instead of "I AM" (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1280 in this ChristianityBoard thread); therefore, you convey that your heart's treasure is that God does change in direct contradiction to the Word of God saying "I, YHWH, do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

moreover

(1)You adulterate the Word of God recorded in Jeremiah 18:6-10 into the word of Rich R "if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I change" (2) in order to adulterate the Word of God "I, YHWH, do not change" (Malachi 3:6) into the word of Rich R "I, Jehovah, do not change except I will become for Israel" (3) which you extend to adulterate the Word of God "I AM Who I AM" (Exodus 3:14) into the word of Rich R "I will be who I will be" (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1331 in this ChristianityBoard thread), so you call the Word of God a LIE, in fact, your word leads you to not know who God is.

moreover


You confusedly lie about writings including Paul's writing that Jesus is not the first man born (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1703 in this ChristianityBoard thread), as is clearly shown between Colossians 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:47.

moreover

You show your utter disrespectful contempt for the Word of God by trying to change the meaning of the Hebrew language (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1660 in this ChristianityBoard thread), even after you've been shown the word for Strong's 5162 means "to be sorry, console oneself", not "repent", but truly something akin to "sorrow"; IN EFFECT, YOU LABEL YHWH GOD A CONFUSED FOOL THAT LIES.

moreover

You show a repeated disrespect and dishonor and disregard for the God Most High by misspelling the sacred and Holy Name of God, YHWH, (as shown in Truth [John 14:6] post #1287 in this ChristianityBoard thread) in at least 3 different posts; therefore, you publicly show just how little God means to you as well as your failure to understand God

You have a false god that you created based on your thoughts that you named Jesus, yet your false god is not the Jesus revealed in the Word of God.

 

[PinSeeker]

They get around all of your logic by saying oh that was when Jesus was acting on his human side, or that was when Jesus was acting on his God side. So logic cannot be used when talking to them. Here's some data on how they think... The Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the divinely conceived Son of God. Jesus Christ is the fully human “Son of God” and not “God the Son.” For clarity’s sake, it's helpful to understand what the Trinity is. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the three of them are co-equal, co-eternal, and share the same essence and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man and that both the divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body may be widely believed, but is never stated in the Bible.

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and that is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical, which may be why Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity say Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on the earth believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians who believe Jesus set aside his godhood while he was a man on the earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong, and yet all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

There are things, Peter, in any piece of writing or literature, that, based on and according to that writing/literature, are absolutely true regardless of any lack of explicit, verbatim quote or utterance. There are plenty of proof-texts for these things. Such is the case in ~ even throughout ~ the Bible with regard to the triune-ness of the one true God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), Christ's status as in the form of (Greek morphe', so 100%) God and in the form of (Greek morphe', so 100%) man.

One of the things that is astounding to me is that both Solomon (Proverbs), David (the Psalms), and Isaiah (his prophecy) all speak of God's wisdom, thoughts, understanding, and knowledge being far above those of mere man, and even unattainable. Yet here is Jesus, as presented in the gospels, teaching all the things of God, with regard to the Law, true application of the Word with regard to daily living, heaven and hell, and the kingdom of God both present and future (and other things) ~ understanding it completely and stating it absolutely authoritatively. There can be but one conclusion... but yet so many deny it. But somehow, such is the will of God. Utterly astounding.

Even so, I say to you the same blessing that Aaron pronounced upon the Israelites:

"The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace." [Numbers 6:24]​

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Rich R]

I bit on what I wrote elsewhere concerning John 1:1...
It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" 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. As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason" (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command," etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, saying, sentence, speaker, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words. I had thought you would have picked a verse that had not a wide range of meanings.

Logos is certainly translated in many different ways, but 80% of them are "say," "saying," or "words" which is a pretty good indication of its basic meaning. The majority of the rest are pretty close to those three meanings.

Since logos is a word that really hasn't been used for many centuries and never in the West, we really need to look to ancient usages of the word and then we can get a good idea of what it means. As far as I've been able to ascertain, it is speech or words but it has special reference to the thought process of the speaker, to what it in his or her mind. I think of it as a "plan" and that is what God had from the beginning. That plan was actually in two parts, the first being the creation and Adam and Eve in the garden, but if that didn't work out, He had a plan "B" which would be Jesus Christ.

 

[Rich R]

A point I have made over the years is that the reason trinitarians MUST believe "word" refers to Christ is because the Biblical support for the man-is-god thesis is otherwise so weak.

Therefore, they must resort to taking figurative language and insisting only a trinitarian interpretation is valid. At the same time, they are forced to completely ignore explicit verses that go against their doctrine, like 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:6 as @Rich R just pointed out and as I did in the thread, arguing that the juxtaposition of God from Jesus in so many verses may be the strongest argument against trinitarianism. IF Jesus were God, there would not be 1 single verse like 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.' It would read their preferred 'Father' loved the world ...

So, I don't think a retreat into Greek is necessary. (Of course, I am biased since foreign language is not my strong suit). John 1:1 is figurative language usage. Today we have an expression, 'my word is my bond.' Here 'word' is also used figuratively to refer to one having integrity, of doing what one says. Likewise, God's words are his bond. You can take it to the bank. God said, 'let there be light' and there was light. God said in Deut 18:15-18 that he would put his words (plural) into one of the people, which is what he did in Jesus at v14, So the Word became human. This fulfilled prophecy.

The cognitive dissonance of trinitarians is so complete, they become unglued when I point out that Scripture does not say God became incarnate but that his word became incarnate, his words (plural) put into the mouth of a prophet he chooses (raises up) among the people. The reason they become unglued is precisely because it is a better interpretation, has more Scriptural support and leaves them no where to go to better support their 4th century man-made dogma.

And this brings up a profound point of logic. Because there is no verse that explicitly says Jesus is God, they are forced to rely on implication. However, a true implication is a necessary consequence, not merely a possible consequence of the sentence. And the analysis I provide reveals the verse is NOT truly implying what they want it to. All they can do is deny other interpretations, other implications EVEN THOUGH stronger than the inference they want to draw.

I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words (plural) in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. Deut 18:18 (emphasis added)

Very good points.

I was thinking of Joseph and how he was second in command to Pharaoh. Joseph's words were as if Pharaoh himself said them. The only thing Pharaoh had over Joseph was the throne. Does that remind you of somebody else in the Bible? :)

1 Cor 15:28,

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
​

Yet another verse we must jettison in light of the trinity. Hmmm...I wonder how much of the Bible would be left if we got rid of all verses like this one that make it quite impossible for Jesus to be God.

Of course we could just made a few edits to prove the trinity. Here's one:

I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words (plural) in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. Deut 18:1
​

We'll just change it to:

I am will raise up myself. I will put my words in my mouth, and I will tell the people everything I command myself. Deut 18:1
​

See, that's all we need do to solve the problem. Easy as pie. The trinity reigns forever! Don't let let the illogical ideas here bother you. Take it by faith...we can't know God's ways...He is beyond us...blah, blah, blah.

 

[PinSeeker]

As is common in English translations, the Greek term 'logos' in John 1 is translated as 'word.' This is perhaps the simplest meaning of 'logos,' but it really can only be understood fully by putting ideas together that are expressed by several English words. For example, we have the disciplines of biology (a word about living things) and theology (a word about God). Put simply, in ancient Greek, 'logos' had far richer connotations than just 'word.' Ancient Greek philosophers, in particular, had special uses for the term 'logos.'

Philosophy is concerned with addressing the ultimate questions of reality, and the ancient Greeks who pursued this discipline were always searching for ultimate truth, the final reality that lies behind everything visible and invisible. As the Greek philosophers considered the questions of truth, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and more, they began to use the word 'logos' to describe the ultimate reality they were all pursuing. This 'logos' was an organizing principle, that which gives life and meaning to the universe. Consequently, the ancient Greeks thought of the logos as an impersonal force, as bare rationality that cannot love or interact with the world.

The Apostle John had to speak the language of his day when he wrote his gospel, so it is not surprising that he used the term 'logos.' Yet he did not simply copy the word as it was used in Greek philosophy, but he transformed it, investing it with biblical content. His logos is personal and can be received or rejected by human beings (John 1:11–12). This was scandalous enough for Greek minds, but what was even worse, from their perspective, was that John said the logos could become incarnate as a human being (John 1:14).

The logos is God Himself, more specifically, the Son of God (Who is also the Son of Man), Who shares fully in the one divine essence. He is the One Who was there “in the beginning,” before all things (John 1:1; see Genesis 1:1). The logos ~ the organizing entity behind all things ~ is the personal Creator who loves His people.

Easy as pie.

But not wooden or simplistic, as some would have it. Such would be the very antithesis of logic.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[Peterlag]

There are things, Peter, in any piece of writing or literature, that, based on and according to that writing/literature, are absolutely true regardless of any lack of explicit, verbatim quote or utterance. There are plenty of proof-texts for these things. Such is the case in ~ even throughout ~ the Bible with regard to the triune-ness of the one true God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), Christ's status as in the form of (Greek morphe', so 100%) God and in the form of (Greek morphe', so 100%) man.

One of the things that is astounding to me is that both Solomon (Proverbs), David (the Psalms), and Isaiah (his prophecy) all speak of God's wisdom, thoughts, understanding, and knowledge being far above those of mere man, and even unattainable. Yet here is Jesus, as presented in the gospels, teaching all the things of God, with regard to the Law, true application of the Word with regard to daily living, heaven and hell, and the kingdom of God both present and future (and other things) ~ understanding it completely and stating it absolutely authoritatively. There can be but one conclusion... but yet so many deny it. But somehow, such is the will of God. Utterly astounding.

Even so, I say to you the same blessing that Aaron pronounced upon the Israelites:

"The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace." [Numbers 6:24]​

Grace and peace to you!

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

 

[Peterlag]

As is common in English translations, the Greek term 'logos' in John 1 is translated as 'word.' This is perhaps the simplest meaning of 'logos,' but it really can only be understood fully by putting ideas together that are expressed by several English words. For example, we have the disciplines of biology (a word about living things) and theology (a word about God). Put simply, in ancient Greek, 'logos' had far richer connotations than just 'word.' Ancient Greek philosophers, in particular, had special uses for the term 'logos.'

Philosophy is concerned with addressing the ultimate questions of reality, and the ancient Greeks who pursued this discipline were always searching for ultimate truth, the final reality that lies behind everything visible and invisible. As the Greek philosophers considered the questions of truth, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and more, they began to use the word 'logos' to describe the ultimate reality they were all pursuing. This 'logos' was an organizing principle, that which gives life and meaning to the universe. Consequently, the ancient Greeks thought of the logos as an impersonal force, as bare rationality that cannot love or interact with the world.

The Apostle John had to speak the language of his day when he wrote his gospel, so it is not surprising that he used the term 'logos.' Yet he did not simply copy the word as it was used in Greek philosophy, but he transformed it, investing it with biblical content. His logos is personal and can be received or rejected by human beings (John 1:11–12). This was scandalous enough for Greek minds, but what was even worse, from their perspective, was that John said the logos could become incarnate as a human being (John 1:14).

The logos is God Himself, more specifically, the Son of God (Who is also the Son of Man), Who shares fully in the one divine essence. He is the One Who was there “in the beginning,” before all things (John 1:1; see Genesis 1:1). The logos ~ the organizing entity behind all things ~ is the personal Creator who loves His people.

But not wooden or simplistic, as some would have it. Such would be the very antithesis of logic.

Grace and peace to all.

It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" 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. As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason" (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command," etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, saying, sentence, speaker, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words. I had thought you would have picked a verse that had not a wide range of meanings.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Most Trinitarians believe that the word Logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1).

Most or ALL of them, because?:

Joh 1:1 "In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and
The Word Was God.
Joh 1:2 The Same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were Made By Him; and without Him was not any thing
made that was made.
+
Joh 1:14 And The Word Was Made Flesh [1Ti 3:16], and dwelt among
us, (and we beheld His Glory, The Glory as of The Only Begotten of the Father,)
full of Grace and Truth."

Surely you are not asking us to believe man instead of

The Written Word Of God In The Scriptures, ​

or, are you???

GRACE And Peace...
+
500 Scriptures!

 

[PinSeeker]

It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1.

Agreed.

Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word"...

Which it does, as John is very clear about in John 1:14-18:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about Him, and cried out, 'This was He of Whom I said, "He who comes after me ranks before me, because He was before me."') For from His fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, Who is at the Father’s side, He has made him known."​

...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.

There is no capitalization in the Greek of the New Testament. But it is used in quite different contexts throughout the New Testament. In John's case, the context is that it refers to a person, and it is properly capitalized in English, as it is a proper noun. Trying to rationalize it away is to no avail.

Jesus reiterates throughout John's gospel what John has written in his opening prologue:

JOHN:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John; John 1:1-4)

JESUS:
"I am the bread of life..." (John 6:35)
"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life..." (John 6:63)
"I am the light of the world..." (John 8:12)
"I am the door of the sheep..." (John 10:7)
"I am the good shepherd..." (John 10:11)
"I and the Father are one..." (John 10:30)
"I am the resurrection and the life..." (John 11:25-26)
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6)​

Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible...

Ah yes, "theologians." Yes. LOL! Jesus very clearly presents God as eternally existing in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in John 14.

Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood... the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.

See, this is not true at all. It's a mystery in the sense that it cannot be fully understood, as in completely grasped and understanding every aspect of it, but it can certainly be understood. And understood by all, as even denying it denotes a level of understanding.

And I will say that those who deny the deity of Christ Jesus certainly play a part not to be minimized at all. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Rich R]

As is common in English translations, the Greek term 'logos' in John 1 is translated as 'word.' This is perhaps the simplest meaning of 'logos,' but it really can only be understood fully by putting ideas together that are expressed by several English words. For example, we have the disciplines of biology (a word about living things) and theology (a word about God). Put simply, in ancient Greek, 'logos' had far richer connotations than just 'word.' Ancient Greek philosophers, in particular, had special uses for the term 'logos.'

Philosophy is concerned with addressing the ultimate questions of reality, and the ancient Greeks who pursued this discipline were always searching for ultimate truth, the final reality that lies behind everything visible and invisible. As the Greek philosophers considered the questions of truth, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and more, they began to use the word 'logos' to describe the ultimate reality they were all pursuing. This 'logos' was an organizing principle, that which gives life and meaning to the universe. Consequently, the ancient Greeks thought of the logos as an impersonal force, as bare rationality that cannot love or interact with the world.

The Apostle John had to speak the language of his day when he wrote his gospel, so it is not surprising that he used the term 'logos.' Yet he did not simply copy the word as it was used in Greek philosophy, but he transformed it, investing it with biblical content. His logos is personal and can be received or rejected by human beings (John 1:11–12). This was scandalous enough for Greek minds, but what was even worse, from their perspective, was that John said the logos could become incarnate as a human being (John 1:14).

The logos is God Himself, more specifically, the Son of God (Who is also the Son of Man), Who shares fully in the one divine essence. He is the One Who was there “in the beginning,” before all things (John 1:1; see Genesis 1:1). The logos ~ the organizing entity behind all things ~ is the personal Creator who loves His people.

But not wooden or simplistic, as some would have it. Such would be the very antithesis of logic.

Grace and peace to all.

You took my "easy as pie" totally out of context. I'll try that with your post:

"The logos is God Himself, more specifically, the Son of God (Who is also the Son of Man), Who shares fully in the one divine essence...Such would be the very antithesis of logic."​

There you go. Just like that you've become a non-trinitarian. Easy as pie! :)

 

[Wrangler]

... all these claim that Christ is God and that the Bible supports their position.

There is a YouTube vid that delves into what people mean and what they don't mean - but imply - with 'support.' The people who make the vid differentiate from an explicit teaching in the Bible.

Using a non-controversial topic, the Bible explicitly teaches that man was created on the 6th day. It is unclear when Eve was created. Now suppose this became highly debated and controversial. Trinitarians invoke artificial synthesis; take a verse - out of context here - take another verse out of context there, one can concoct and thereby, "support" whatever doctrine one wants.

Human nature is we want answers. When we don't have an answer, we make up myths. Atheists claim this is also the basis of all religions. However, I certainly agree this applies to trinitarians. They feel obligated to go beyond what the actual word of God explicitly teaches because making myths up is more satisfying than saying "we don't know. And if you think about it, that is the mind of a scientist, to be satisfied with knowing the line between knowledge and ignorance.

God has chosen to reveal himself over time. Patience is a virtue and we are called to wait on God's timing. The explicit teaching in the Bible is there is one God, the Father. This is explicitly stated in every Epistle and constitutes proof text against the trinity as there is no "God the Son" or God the Holy Spirit" text. Here, they invoke the illogical standard that 'implied' verses supersede explicit verses.

 

[PinSeeker]

You took my "easy as pie" totally out of context.

Well, I didn't take it out of context, but disregarded your "context" and applied the right context to it. And it was very purposeful. :)

I'll try that with your post:

"The logos is God Himself, more specifically, the Son of God (Who is also the Son of Man), Who shares fully in the one divine essence...Such would be the very antithesis of logic."​

There you go.

See, you're doing something quite different; making something somebody said into the opposite of what it was. Which is quite dishonest... :)

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

In the beginning, Elohim (a plural form) meaning God is more than one person.
"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1: 25
"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil."
Gen. 3:22
In both verses the word "us" is referring to God. These are pronouns. [A pronoun is a word that is used instead of a noun or noun phrase. Pronouns refer to either a noun that has already been mentioned or to a noun that does not need to be named specifically.]
God is not talking to His angels, for angels do not create anything.
God is love. Love cannot be alone. Love needs to express itself, have a relationship. Can you say you are a loving person if you lived on an island all by yourself. When a person says they are in love, that always means with another person. You could love yourself, but if that was all you did, that is selfish, self serving and not the kind of love that we see God as being.
So God must be plural or do you think He was alone before the creation of anything? "Let Us make man in Our image!" The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have this loving relationship, they are ONE.
3 persons, 1 God.
No greater an expression of love is that you would sacrifice your life for another person. That is what God did. He became flesh, a human, dwelt among us and died for us. Jesus is the expression of God's love. Jesus did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped by men ... at least some men.

Scholars have been going on about this word, Elohim like forever.
This Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Genesis 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to YHWH God himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to YHWH God, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Genesis 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote in, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. XXI, 1905, page 208: “That the language of the Old Testament has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”
This shows that even among those who do believe in the Trinity they all don't agree.