Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[ProDeo]

Revelation 12:3-4
12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
12:4 And his tale (of lies - John 8:35) drew the third part of the "Stars" (ch. 9:1) of heaven (into his army), and did (cause them to be) cast to the Earth (for their treason against God): and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born (Christ - Second Coming).

Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Are we in agreement Revelations is about things that must take place soon, thus in the future and not things that happened in the past?

Revelation 12:7-9
12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon (Lucifer); and the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out to the Earth, and his angels (you - Luke 9:55) were cast out with him (Matthew 25:41).

How can I be thrown out of heaven on Earth, I wasn't even born back then.

Genesis 1:6-8
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament (Heaven) in the midst of the "waters" (people - Rev. 17:15), and let it divide the "waters" from the "waters" (Rev. 12:3-4; 12:7-9).
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the "waters" (1/3 of the angels of heaven, who fought with Satan) which [were] under the firmament (Heaven) from the "waters" which [were] above the firmament (the 2/3rds of the angels of heaven that fought with Michael/Christ): and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the Second Day.

?

Rev 12:3-4 and 12:7-9 isn't about waters at all.

Okay, I stop here.

No proof at all for preexistence.

 

[ProDeo]

It is going to come as a shock to you….sorry in advanced. God the Father's was in the scriptures 6,800 times and His name was completely removed and replaced with what we see as God or Lord in your Bibles.

The Greek word in the New Testament that is used for Christ's name is, Ἰησοῦς Iēsous it is not a name it is a Greek word that means healer that is why you do not see Greek people in history named Ἰησοῦς unless they were a doctor. Christ name is Yeshua written ישוע. It is Hebrew and it appears that many never got the point that Miriam His mother would not have given Him a Greek word for a name, or a Greek name for that matter.

No one knows where the name Jesus came from, it just appeared in the 17th century.

If you want a Bible with the names of God the Father and God the Son in them look into some of the Sacred Names Bibles. For me as a theologian it is important to have a Bible with Their names in it.

This is a nice video, it's part of the documentary -- The Verdict of History - Reliability of the NT -- the producers have copied all used Scripture from the letters of the early church fathers, put them together, and they conclude they could recreate the whole NT except for 11 insignificant verses and that before the 4th century.

 

[A Freeman]

I here from the Spirit most of the day don’t you?

Sprit gives birth to spirit?..that’s a Living spiritual birth?

I’m always checking out the word after the Spirit speaks to me on what I hear him testify to my spirit, after all that’s the only way we can communicate with God, via His Living Holy Sprit.to our spirit.

The written word confirms this..whose your teacher ?the word or the Spirit ?@RedFan ?

Who guides us into truth the Living Spirit or the Bible?


The Holy Spirit ain’t no Bible ya know.

​

◄ John 16:13 ►

​

Audio Crossref Comment Greek Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come

For those who lack the listening (spiritual) ear, sharing the amazing connection we have with Father will literally fall on deaf ears. It's a foreign language to them, as is the truth.

Isaiah 33:19 Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive; of a ridiculous (weird sounding) way of talking, [that thou canst] not understand.

Truth, and the deeper meaning of life it engenders, sounds very strange to most in a world that is FILLED with lies.

Most people are terrified of the truth, because it requires them to take personal responsibility for their own actions. That's why they (their ego/"self" really) vehemently attack it.

There's nothing communicated to any of us from Father that doesn't find a solid foundation in Scripture. In fact, it usually opens our eyes even further, when we are ready to accept being shown truth we haven't previously seen.

Psalm 119:18 Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy Law.

Ephesians 1:17-18
1:17 That the God of our Lord Christ Jesus, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of Wisdom and revelation in the Knowledge of Him:
1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the holy people,

Romans 8:13-17
8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body (crucify the "Self"), ye shall live.
8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the (adopted) sons of God.
8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit (Being/Soul), that we (our Beings/Souls) are the children of God:
8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

How obvious does it need to be made for the (spiritually) blind to see that God's CHILDREN (the Sons of God) are His heirs, and that they are joint-heirs with Christ?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I think it was cursive, but there is still no punctuation in an early cursive manuscript.

Cursive came later.

 

[Johann]

This is a nice video, it's part of the documentary -- The Verdict of History - Reliability of the NT -- the producers have copied all used Scripture from the letters of the early church fathers, put them together, and they conclude they could recreate the whole NT except for 11 insignificant verses and that before the 4th century.

Correct—just take John 1:1 as an example and observe how the ECFs were already refuting heresies during that time. @ProDeo.

John 1:1 and ECF Responses to Heresies

Arianism (Claim: The Word was a created being)

Arians argued that the Logos (Word) was the first creation of God and not eternal.

Athanasius: "The evangelist writes, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ not ‘became’ or ‘was made,’ to affirm the eternal existence of the Word alongside the Father." (Against the Arians, Discourse 1)

By focusing on the Greek imperfect verb ἦν (ēn), the Fathers argued that the Word always existed and was never created.

Modalism (Claim: No distinction between Father and Son)

Modalists taught that the Father and the Son were the same person appearing in different roles.

Tertullian: "The Word was with God. This phrase, ‘with God,’ establishes the distinction of persons without dividing the divine essence." (Against Praxeas, Chapter 5)

The preposition πρὸς (pros), meaning "with," was crucial for demonstrating the relational distinction between the Word and the Father.

Gnosticism (Claim: The Word was alien to creation)

Gnostics believed that the divine could not interact with or enter the material world.

Irenaeus: "The Word, by whom all things were made, entered creation to sanctify it. He was not alien to the world He formed, for ‘the Word was God.’" (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 11)

The ECFs argued that since the Word is both God and Creator, He could take on flesh without compromising His divinity.

Adoptionism (Claim: Christ was a mere man adopted as God’s Son)

Adoptionists claimed Jesus was a man later exalted to divinity.

Hippolytus: "John declares, ‘The Word was God,’ showing that the Word’s divine nature is not acquired but inherent from the beginning." (Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10)

The Fathers used this verse to affirm Christ’s divine pre-existence and eternal union with the Father.

Sabellianism (Claim: The Word was only a manifestation of the Father)

Sabellians rejected the idea of distinct persons in the Godhead. Now we know who are the Sabellians @ProDeo.

Origen: "The Word is distinct yet inseparable from the Father, as John writes, ‘The Word was with God, and the Word was God.’" (Commentary on John, Book 1)

The dual affirmation of "with God" and "was God" highlighted both distinction and unity.

Key Themes in Refutations
Eternality of the Word:
The phrase "In the beginning was the Word" refuted any teaching that the Word had a starting point. The Fathers consistently emphasized that the Word is eternal, co-existing with the Father.

Divine Essence of the Word:
By affirming "The Word was God," the ECFs established the consubstantiality (homoousios) of the Word with the Father, countering claims of inferiority or separateness.

Relational Distinction:
The phrase "The Word was with God" was used to show that the Word is not the Father but exists in eternal relationship with Him, countering Modalism and Sabellianism.

Role in Creation:
Linking John 1:1 to subsequent verses, the Fathers showed that the Word as Creator contradicted Gnostic and Adoptionist claims of a distant or subordinate Logos.

Conclusion
John 1:1 was a cornerstone for defending orthodoxy. The ECFs skillfully used its language to dismantle early heresies, upholding the eternal, divine, and relational nature of the Word as foundational to Christian theology. Their interpretations laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian formulations, solidifying the verse as a definitive statement on the nature of Christ.

Shalom.

J.

 

[A Freeman]

Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Are we in agreement Revelations is about things that must take place soon, thus in the future and not things that happened in the past?


How can I be thrown out of heaven on Earth, I wasn't even born back then.


?

Rev 12:3-4 and 12:7-9 isn't about waters at all.

Okay, I stop here.

No proof at all for preexistence.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

We are ALL spiritual-Beings (souls) that are zillions of years old. It is the human body that you are presently incarnating that was born sometime in the last few decades. But you will NEVER see this unless you are born again as your true, SPIRITUAL self, realizing who and what you really are: a spiritual-Being.

John 3:3-7
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot SEE The Kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water (human) and then is born (later) from above as his spirit-"Being" (his REAL self which is NOT human), he can NOT enter into The Kingdom of God (Who is a Spirit-"Being").
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh (human); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (a spirit-"Being") - (a human+Being).
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye MUST be born again.

Romans 8:5-8
8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8:6 For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace (John 3:5-6).
8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to The Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
8:8 So then they that are in the ways of flesh cannot please God.

Why do you think Adam and Eve suddenly went from not being ashamed of being inside of a naked human body, to suddenly believing they were naked? BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR SPIRITUAL EYESIGHT DUE TO SINNING, AND NO LONGER KNEW WHO OR WHAT THEY WERE.

You are obviously suffering from the same affliction, which is why you cannot even see that "WAS" is a PAST-TENSE verb, i.e. something that happened IN THE PAST.

Christ's Revelation to John is a REVEALING of events that would take place before the Last Day, which very obviously includes revealing the truth about our HISTORY, i.e. why we are here and what the purpose of Life really is.

It is our arrogance (the ego) that blinds us to our own ignorance, including the ignorance of our own arrogance.

Learn to destroy your ego, before it destroys YOU (the REAL you - the spiritual-Being/Soul within).

Peace be upon you.

 

[RedFan]

There was a new law that Jesus spoke about….”the law of the Christ” was about what Jesus taught.
This was founded on the two basic principles (the greatest commandments) upon which the whole law was founded….”Love for God and neighbor”…..not adherence to a law that Paul said was a curse.

Gal 3:10-14…
”All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them.” 11  Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared righteous with God, because “the righteous one will live by reason of faith.” 12  Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, “anyone who does these things will live by means of them.” 13  Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake.” 14  This was so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the nations by means of Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith.”

I need to push back just a bit here.

Deut. 11:26 portrays the Law as both a blessing to those who keep it and a curse to those who don’t. Galatians swept the “blessing” part under the rug. Gal. 3:10 stresses that the curse follows a single slip-up (quoting Deut. 27:26). Gal. 3:11 tells us that justification does not come from the Law, and that life comes only from faith (quoting Hab. 2:4). But then Gal. 3:12 quotes Lev. 18:5, perhaps the leading OT passage suggesting that keeping the Law is what leads to life. (One finds this notion echoed in Ezek. 20:11, Prov. 19:16, Psalms of Solomon 14:1-5, Philo’s Preliminary Studies 86-87, even Matt. 19:16-17.) This strikes me as at worst contradictory, and at best a poor choice of Scripture in support of what I take to be Paul’s goal: dissuading the Galatians from turning to the Law instead of to faith for their salvation. If that were my agenda, Lev. 18:5 is the last verse I would quote!

Granted, Galatians never explicitly declares that nobody can keep the Law perfectly – perhaps because the “blessing” part of Deut. 11:26 makes that a questionable conclusion (see also Ps. 18:20-24), or perhaps because Paul himself elsewhere claimed to be “blameless” under the Law, Phil. 3:6 – but isn’t that exactly what he wants the “foolish Galatians” to infer? And, doesn’t his quote from Leviticus undercut him here?

The issue is simple to frame: is salvation available under the Law? Galatians, no less than Romans, has become something of a proof text for millions of Christians to answer No. But a close reading of Galatians does not actually support that answer. Rather, it supports “Don’t choose to play by those Rules, you foolish Galatians; for once you sign up for that, you’ll almost certainly fail to end up with the required perfect score – and thanks to Calvary, there is now an easier way, so why take the chance?”

There is a common-sense distinction between the Law’s innate inability to save, and mankind’s innate inability to keep the Law sufficiently to be saved (a la Rom. 2:1 – 3:20). On my reading, Galatians at best supports only the latter, although Christians everywhere seem to assume it supports the former. Someone may object that my distinction has no practical difference in effect. But if forgiveness when the Law is violated can reset the scoreboard, there is a HUGE practical difference. And that type of score reset is well attested in the OT.

I read Gal. 3:12 – and its analogue, Rom. 10:5 – to mean that salvation is available under the Law, provided one keeps it perfectly. (Calvin agrees with me: “The hope of eternal life is, therefore, given to all who keep the Law; for those who expound the passage as referring to this earthly and transitory life are mistaken.”) And difficult though it is, it is not an impossible task. (Who would be so bold as to declare that Luke 1:6 is a lie?)

 

[CadyandZoe]

Plenty evidence-
THE MIGHTY GOD BECOMES A MALE CHILD

The Hebrew Bible further testifies that the one true Mighty God of Israel will become a human male Child for the express purpose of ruling over David’s throne forever:

I would say it differently. One aspect of God's nature is both his simplicity and his immutability, which means that he never BECOMES anything. Thus, it is not proper to say that the God of Israel will become a human male child. Rather, the God of Israel created a human being that would be him in the world.

Returning to the topic, God and Jesus do not have a numerical or qualitative identity. Instead, they share a representational identity, as the scriptures teach. The scriptures do not teach that Jesus and God are equal in their essence, as Trinitarians claim. The scriptures teach that Jesus and the Father are equal in their authority because Jesus is a man whom God created to represent God in creation.

Isaiah 9 does not prove that Jesus exists as a second person in a tripartite being or that the second person of the trinity became incarnate as a human being. It clearly says that a child will be BORN and he shall be CALLED, which is what the New Testament also teaches. Jesus is called "eternal father", which makes sense if Jesus is representationally equal to the father.

One only needs to reflect on Isaiah's claim to recognize the contradiction within the Trinitarian doctrine. According to this doctrine, the second person of the Trinity is not only referred to as God the Son, he is also called "the eternal father". Therefore, Trinitarianism presents a case of mistaken identity by asserting that the Son will be called "eternal father." Who is Jesus, Father or Son? Jesus is NOT the father, therefore the Trinitarian model is not valid.

The Bible does not teach that the Father and the Son are numerically identical. It teaches that Jesus is God's image, and as such, the Father and the Son share a representational identity. Jesus said it himself. Speaking to Phillip he asserts, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

Then it is obvious that the Child born is none other YHWH God Almighty that chose to be born as a Man!

I disagree. Again, God is simple and immutable; he never changes, and he never "becomes" something else. Instead, as the transcendent creator, God created Jesus to represent himself in our world. Jesus was NOT simple and immutable; He was born and he grew in wisdom. He began as a child and became a man.

 

[Ritajanice]

383,386, excellent posts @A Freeman ..

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Law given to Israel was nailed to the execution stake with Christ….he is the end of the old law covenant.

Only one law was nailed to the cross: the law concerning Gentile access to the temple. Paul speaks figuratively when he argues that both Jews and Gentiles now have access to God through the Holy Spirit. Figuratively speaking, the middle wall partition has been torn down. This aligns with Jesus' teaching that God will eventually not be worshipped in a temple, as true worshippers will worship in spirit and in truth.

The new covenant was a whole new ball game, leaving most of the laws given to Israel as invalid for Christians…like all the unclean foods they could not eat….now they could. That they were not to associate with people of the nations….but now they were to become their brothers in Christ.

The Law itself wasn't made invalid; rather, the Law ceased to be the means to justification. Israel mistakenly concluded that God was granting justification on the basis of Jewish praxis (works of the Law.) Paul argues that justification is by faith and it has always been by faith.

He also argues that practicing Moses is beneficial for the Jews in that it teaches them about morality and holiness. And Paul practices Moses when he is around Jewish people so as to not place an obstacle in the way of the gospel. He also recommended the same course for Timothy, having him circumcised. But he did not circumcise Titus because he was not a Jew.

Nonetheless, you are correct to say that the Law died with the Old Covenant. On the other hand, when God makes his new covenant with the house of Israel, they will once again keep Moses as modified by Elijah the prophet.

 

[Johann]

Returning to the topic, God and Jesus do not have a numerical or qualitative identity. Instead, they share a representational identity, as the scriptures teach. The scriptures do not teach that Jesus and God are equal in their essence, as Trinitarians claim. The scriptures teach that Jesus and the Father are equal in their authority because Jesus is a man whom God created to represent God in creation.

A couple of errors-since you’re so kind and approachable, @CadyandZoe.

Let’s look at John 1:1 and how the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) refuted heresies using this verse. It’s important to see how the syntax, morphology, and their writings demonstrate that Jesus is not a created being nor merely a representative, but is co-eternal, co-equal, and of the same divine essence as the Father.

The Greek Syntax and Morphology of John 1:1
"καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" ("and the Word was God")

The Greek construction emphasizes the nature of the Word as divine. The predicate noun Θεός (Theos) is placed before the verb ἦν (was) and lacks the definite article, which makes it qualitative. This demonstrates that the Word shares the same divine essence as God.

Athanasius: "John does not say that the Word was ‘a god’ or ‘like God,’ but that ‘the Word was God,’ affirming the same divine essence as the Father."

"πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" ("was with God")

The preposition πρὸς (pros) highlights an intimate relationship while maintaining distinction between the Word and God (the Father).

Tertullian: "‘With God’ establishes that the Word is distinct from the Father, yet not separate in essence."

"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" ("In the beginning was the Word")

The imperfect verb ἦν (was) indicates continuous existence.
The Word always existed and was not created, which directly opposes claims that Jesus is a created being.

Origen: "The Word was not created, for the evangelist declares that He was ‘in the beginning,’ co-eternal with God."

The Early Church Fathers and Their Refutations
On Numerical and Qualitative Identity

While the Word and the Father are distinct persons, the ECFs taught that they share the same divine essence (homoousios).

Athanasius: "The Father and the Son are one, not by confusion of persons, but by unity of essence. The Son is God of God, Light of Light."

On Authority and Representation

The claim that Jesus’ authority is only representational, as if He were merely a man created to act for God, is contradicted by the ECFs-and Scripture.

Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ possesses all authority not as a mere man but as God incarnate, for He is the Creator of all."

On the Word as Uncreated

The idea that Jesus was created is directly refuted by the ECFs, who affirmed His eternal nature.

Irenaeus: "The Word, by whom all things were made, Himself was not made. He is begotten of the Father, not created."

Key Scriptural Evidence Supporting Trinitarian Theology
John 10:30 – "I and the Father are one"

The Greek word ἕν (hen) refers to unity of essence, not just authority or purpose.

Hilary of Poitiers: "Christ declares unity with the Father not as a mere representative but as sharing the same divine nature."

Hebrews 1:3 – "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature"

The Greek word χαρακτήρ (charaktēr) indicates an exact representation of the Father’s essence, not a lesser or created being.

John 5:18 – "He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God"

The Jewish leaders understood Jesus’ claim as equality in nature, not just representation.

Chrysostom: "The Jews recognized what some heretics deny: that Jesus’ claim to Sonship is a claim to divinity."


The Greek syntax of John 1:1, the writings of the ECFs, and scripture as a whole affirm that Jesus is not a created being or merely a representative of God.

Instead, He is the eternal, divine Word who shares the same essence as the Father while remaining distinct in person. The ECFs consistently defended this truth against all heresies of their time, laying the foundation for Trinitarian theology.

I can go on and refute all your other points @CadyandZoe just by using Scriptures.

November 29, 2024 – Answering Islam Blog

1 post published by answeringislamblog on November 29, 2024

answeringislamblog.wordpress.com

the-uncreated-word-enters-creation/

November 26, 2024 – Answering Islam Blog

2 posts published by answeringislamblog on November 26, 2024

answeringislamblog.wordpress.com

the-uncreated-word-becomes-flesh/

THE UNCREATED WORD ENTERS CREATION

JOHN 1:1

The Truth of John 1:1

JOHN 1:1 REVISITED

CHRIST: THE UNCREATED CREATOR OF ALL CREATION

NT SCHOLARSHIP ON JOHN 1:1 AND TITUS 2:13 PT. 1

What Kind of Theos is Jesus?

Shalom.

J.

 

[ProDeo]

It is our arrogance (the ego) that blinds us to our own ignorance, including the ignorance of our own arrogance.

Learn to destroy your ego, before it destroys YOU (the REAL you - the spiritual-Being/Soul within).

Ah, disagreement leads to another judgement, what's new?

Fact is, you are wrong, I very much would wish preexistence were true because it answers some nasty questions I still have. But hey, there is no compelling evidence in Scripture and your explanations from Scripture make no sense at all.

 

[A Freeman]

It was the ordinances (substitute animal-sacrifice and the priestly duties carrying that out) which was done away with at the cross, NOT the National, Moral Law, which God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments.

Ephesians 2:13-16
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Jesus.
2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] The Law of Commandments [contained] in Ordinances (circumcision); for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Colossians 2:13-15
2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He revitalized together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
2:15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them himself.

Christ plainly stated that The National, Moral Law God gave us to protect us from evil and to set and keep us free, would NEVER go away, and to not even think that.

Matthew 5:17-19
5:17 Think NOT that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill [to fully preach The Law (The Torah) and fulfill the prophecies about the first coming of the Messiah].
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till ALL be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least COMMANDments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in The Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in The Kingdom of heaven.

It should be self-evident that heaven and Earth haven't passed away, as all of us are still here. So God's Law remains in force today, and is the sole/soul criteria on which all of our works shall be judged (Matt. 16:27).

 

[Wrangler]

I need to push back just a bit here.

Deut. 11:26 portrays the Law as both a blessing to those who keep it and a curse to those who don’t.

It's difficult to discern your push back in the context of a trinitarian anti-logic thread. As a lawyer, you know the importance of jurisdiction and what it means when a government and court lacks jurisdiction. "The law" of the OT has jurisdiction only over the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai with Moses when YHWH gave the 10 Commandments (and their descendants). It never applied to Gentiles, which we are.

The issue is simple to frame: is salvation available under the Law?

No. You quoted book but not verses. Paul makes it clear that the Law merely reveals the need to be saved.

On my reading, Galatians at best supports only the latter, although Christians everywhere seem to assume it supports the former. Someone may object that my distinction has no practical difference in effect. But if forgiveness when the Law is violated can reset the scoreboard, there is a HUGE practical difference. And that type of score reset is well attested in the OT.

Let's flush this out. Please expand on this thought with particular Scripture references.

 

[Grailhunter]

This is a nice video, it's part of the documentary -- The Verdict of History - Reliability of the NT -- the producers have copied all used Scripture from the letters of the early church fathers, put them together, and they conclude they could recreate the whole NT except for 11 insignificant verses and that before the 4th century.

Like I said I am aTheologian, a Theologian educated in five countries. I was just giving you information. And it is true that they can reconstruct not only most of the books of the New Testament but also the history leading up to Ecumenical Councils.

They are also finding more and more proofs of the places and events of the Old Testament. Christians usually have a bad attitude for science but right now science is producing evidence for the Bible and Christians. And by more and more I mean with my connections I am receiving information on sites nearly every week.

 

[CadyandZoe]

A couple of errors-since you’re so kind and approachable, @CadyandZoe.

Let’s look at John 1:1 and how the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) refuted heresies using this verse.

I don't accept the ECF's as witnesses to the Truth. They have nothing to say to me in the least.

The Greek construction emphasizes the nature of the Word as divine.

I disagree. In this context, John is speaking about a promise. (word = promise) Thus, "the word is God" indicates the content of the promise, which is "God among us."

The predicate noun Θεός (Theos) is placed before the verb ἦν (was) and lacks the definite article, which makes it qualitative. This demonstrates that the Word shares the same divine essence as God.

A word is just a word and can not share divine essence.

The Greek syntax of John 1:1, the writings of the ECFs, and scripture as a whole affirm that Jesus is not a created being or merely a representative of God.

Incorrect. Both Paul and John declare that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and that God created Jesus to be the "translation" of God.

 

[Johann]

I don't accept the ECF's as witnesses to the Truth. They have nothing to say to me in the least.

I disagree. In this context, John is speaking about a promise. (word = promise) Thus, "the word is God" indicates the content of the promise, which is "God among us."



A word is just a word and can not share divine essence.

Incorrect. Both Paul and John declare that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and that God created Jesus to be the "translation" of God.

Incorrect-and do put on your thinking cap-no disrespect.

J.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Cursive came later.

The capital manuscripts are not carbon dated enough to make that claim.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The capital manuscripts are not carbon dated enough to make that claim.

Okay, if you say so.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Exploring Trinitarian Logic

I thought talking about the trinity was forbidden on this forum?