Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[face2face]

The NET, ESV and KJV have all the traditional passages contrary to the JW bible.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [esv]
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. [net]
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [kjv]

John 1:14 And the Word [God] 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.

It seems like we've gone over this issue multiple times, but I sense you still haven't fully considered the wise counsel that’s been offered. You can keep posting John 1:1, but it will never say what you want it to say. The interpretation of Scripture requires careful examination in its historical and Judaistic context, rather than simply clinging to a single verse to support a preconceived doctrine. The broader biblical narrative provides much more clarity when we approach it with humility and open mind.

It makes no sense to understand the incarnation by human logic, let alone the Trinity, an exercise in futility, you can only believe it by faith, trusting the Scripture.

Proving a lie from Scripture is a soul destroying task...best you accept the Shema and take comfort in the Oneness of Yahweh God and His Victory over Sin's Flesh in His Son.

I am confident you understood my question as rhetoric, John is of course not the liar, the JW bible is. The Scriptures is all we have, we should treasure it and keep it clean from deliberate changes, the apostle John saw Jesus crucified on a cross, not on a stake or pole.

I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I don't use that particular translation, nor was I suggesting that you were focused on the specifics of the crucifixion method. The important point is indeed what Christ accomplished through His crucifixion—He crucified the flesh along with its lusts and passions, as you rightly point out. The method of His crucifixion may be secondary to the deeper spiritual and redemptive act that it represents.

And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Gal 5:24

They are being called to do (spiritually) what their Lord already accomplished in crucifiying his sinful flesh literal & spiritually!

I sincerely regret that you were taught the Trinity, and I hope you can rediscover the true, original Gospel of God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

F2F

 

[Aunty Jane]

No, the redemption price was set on the original traditional marriage arrangement...

How did you come by that idea? What has redemption got to do with the original marriage tradition?
If you have to sell something at a pawn shop to cover a debt, the price to redeem the item is what you got paid for it…..that is what redemption meant. You buy it back for the set price.

In Israel, if a man got into debt, and he couldn’t pay, he went into service to the creditor until the debt was paid off. If he had a family to support, then one of his children could be offered to service the debt in his place…or a wealthy friend or family member could volunteer to repay the debt…..it was cleared and the man was free to go.

Christ’s redemption follows the latter…..mankind is in debt to God and cannot pay the price to extract ourselves from the situation Adam caused……since it required the same price as what was lost….perfect sinless life…..Jesus was “sent” by his Father and volunteered to pay that price to set us free from the debt of sin and death.

Perfect is the word GOD used in the translation of the KJV Bible....who am I or you to dispute it.

It doesn’t mean sinless…..perfect is a word that means “complete, lacking nothing”…one who is…

1. “sound, wholesome
   1. an ordinary, quiet sort of person
2. complete, morally innocent, having integrity
   1. one who is morally and ethically pure”

There is no such thing as a “perfect” person when sin is born into them.
It is an inheritance from Adam. (Rom 5:12)

 

[Johann]

You must be feeling a lot of pressure in this thread J.
Don't envy seeing the foundation of your faith erode away by such compelling evidence.
F2F

There’s no rush-neither you nor the others have yet presented a persuasive argument against the Triune Godhead.

J.

 

[face2face]

There’s no rush-neither you nor the others have yet presented a persuasive argument against the Triune Godhead.

J.

I believe you find some of the arguments compelling, but conceding would come at too great a cost.

F2F

 

[Johann]

I believe you find some of the arguments compelling, but conceding would come at too great a cost.

F2F

No compelling counter arguments from you or the others-no need for me to concede since it is biblical.

J.

 

[face2face]

Johann typed: Colossians 1:16
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
"For by Him all things were created"

ἐν always means at or into; never 'by'. Strong's might disagree, but that one misrender changes the whole passage.

RSV, YLT, and ASV render it in. The Kingdom of God had place in him and for him. Exalted, yes, but dare you think you as a mortal get an image of that.

Mono and @RedFan

When reading the Word of God, it's crucial to grasp the foundational context of the writer's thoughts and how they are guiding their readers. While Paul's thinking is rooted in the early Genesis account for most of Colossians, which I can demonstrate later if you like, here he draws from Isaiah 45. It’s masterfully written and further emphasizes the importance of the Old Testament text and its Monotheistic interpretation. It means this section must be read with Isaiah 45 in mind!


Colossians cannot be cherry picked without first understanding the authors intent!

Colossians 1:1 - 1:8 God’s Word (the Gospel) sent forth to create fruitfulness (Isaiah 55).
Colossians 1:9 - 1:14 Prayer for the Spirit gifts to be given to the Colossae ecclesia so that their spiritual development might come to fruition (Exod 35).
Colossians 1:15-23 The New Creation brought into being through the redemptive work of Christ (Genesis 1).
Colossians 1:24-29 The ministry of the Apostle Paul in the Gospel - the minister to the body(the church) of the second Adam (Genesis 2, Isaiah 45).
Colossians 2:1-23 The destructive effect of the Judaistic teaching on the body of Christ (Genesis 3).

The entire letter is rooted in the Old Testament foundation, which consistently supports Monotheism rather than Trinitarianism.

F2F

 

[face2face]

No compelling counter arguments from you or the others-no need for me to concede since it is biblical.

J.

Lets consider your claim "Biblical"

1. You have failed to show any verse in the Bible which speaks to Jesus being Divine Nature while being tested in sins flesh. (asked at least five times!)
2. Your belief of Christ being incapable of sin removes you from the Atoning Principles which God has placed in His Son, namely his body & blood offering.
3. You cannot explain or define how two natures can co-exist, one being Divine, the other Sins Flesh - how can immortality and mortality exist in the same body?
4. You cannot show a verse anywhere in the Bible that states Christ raised himself.
5. You cannot reconcile or show how the Trinity fits theologically, logically and historically with the Bible’s Jewish origins.
6. You cannot explain how God removed the law of sin and death from our nature, if He did not dwell in it (no victory!).
7. You cannot explain how one person in the God-head can be subject to another and yet all persons be co-equal?

Johann, you have already conceded, as the absence of Biblical evidence is evident throughout this thread.

F2F

 

[face2face]

@RedFan @MonoBiblical



Considering the context of Colossians, do you believe Paul shifted his focus to introduce Trinitarian doctrine, or did he stay true to his central theme?

Jesus Christ is either the very substance of this New Creation, which was established at His death and resurrection, or He is not truly New.

You must choose between embracing preeminence over preexistence, which upholds the central theme of all things existing in Christ Jesus, or risk undermining that very theme.

If Jesus is not the first mortal to be granted immortality, how can he be called firstborn? to imply others like him will follow...

F2F

 

[face2face]

@MonoBiblical @RedFan



The Unitarian case fits theologically, logically and historically with the Bible’s Jewish origins. The writers understood the readers would make these connections and thereby heed the warnings. Nowhere within Pauls letters does he introduce a new Godhead only the New Spiritual Creation which in Christ Jesus.

It is evident that the early church fathers did not have access to the Scriptures in the way we do today, nor were they equipped with the same tools and study skills. However, what they were well-versed in were Greek mythology and Platonic philosophy.

If you truly believe that Paul was introducing the doctrine of the Trinity within the context of his exhortational letter, then I fear many have completely overlooked his warnings.

F2F

@Aunty Jane I know you have a knowledge gap when it comes to Genesis 3 so here for your reference!

 

[face2face]

It is also worth noting the absence of the terms "Devil" and "Satan," as it is clear that Paul understands the Genesis account and instead uses phrases like "old man," "flesh," "evil desires", and others to describe the human condition.

F2F

 

[Lizbeth]

If Jesus couldn't sin because he was God, then why did the Holy Spirit lead him into the desert to be tested? What was the point of that?

Doesn't the New Testament teach us that Jesus was tempted in every way we were? (Hebrews 4:15) If Jesus couldn't sin because he was God, then how was his temptation like ours?

Cant' say if I understand perfectly and completely, and I encourage you to bring your questions to the Lord, but I believe for one thing the point of that (and His whole earthly life) was to face down and confront the devil point blank in order to overcome/conquer him in obedience to the Father and for our sakes to break the way open for us, so to speak. Which Jesus did perfectly every step of the way, He overcame the world, the flesh and the devil I believe without any wavering or stumbling or back and forthing. (It wasn't because the devil had anything in Him, because Jesus said he didn't....unlike us.) And because He overcame we now can overcome through Him and with Him. (With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.) The devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking who he may devour.....so I expect he went after Jesus like he goes after all of us and the Father permitted him to in His wisdom and sovereign will for His redemptive purposes. The bible doesn't say it was a fair competition between Jesus and the devil, it just says Jesus was tempted in the same manner that we are.

 

[face2face]

Cant' say if I understand perfectly and completely, and I encourage you to bring your questions to the Lord, but I believe for one thing the point of that (and His whole earthly life) was to face down and confront the devil point blank in order to overcome/conquer him in obedience to the Father and for our sakes to break the way open for us, so to speak. Which Jesus did perfectly every step of the way, He overcame the world, the flesh and the devil I believe without any wavering or stumbling or back and forthing. (It wasn't because the devil had anything in Him, because Jesus said he didn't....unlike us.) And because He overcame we now can overcome through Him and with Him. (With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.) The devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking who he may devour.....so I expect he went after Jesus like he goes after all of us and the Father permitted him to in His wisdom and sovereign will for His redemptive purposes. The bible doesn't say it was a fair competition between Jesus and the devil, it just says Jesus was tempted in the same manner that we are.

The one asking the questions is leading the one providing the wrong answers into truth.

You don't see that everyday!

F2F

 

[Lizbeth]

What are you saying Liz again? When did I say that I was discouraged and under some type of desperation by Amigo's words. You have it all backwards? Reread my post again. I was reflecting this description as to how Amigo responded to my earlier post to him.. as a desperate attempt to avoid my words as truth.....

And then Amigo loved your post, and he knew you had it all wrong. He was laughing that you got it all backwards and made him look golden, What a friend indeed he is...

Read the post again Liz

Post #1103 to amigo:

"Oh my, you defy scripture again, and then in desperation try to add a gotcha that is not at all.
Do you want me to explain this one to you as well? ..you might learn something more precious in scripture than your words of discouragement and despair today? One day you might stop running on your own and listen to the Spirit."

You were over-analyzing...there is only one Spirit.

But I was just responding to where you called his post "words of discouragement and despair" and could not see why it would cause discouragement or despair unless one was being convicted by it.

People think the truth is all goodness and light all the time and that everything that makes us not feel good about ourselves must be of the devil...which is not the case. The meat of the word takes some serious chewing and is often hard to digest for the reason that it reveals our shortcomings and because it calls us to lay down more of our lives on the altar. Both Jesus and Paul spoke of those who couldn't yet bear certain things (because they were yet carnal babes though by now, where Paul said that in Hebrews, they ought to have grown past that stage). The church today is floundering for lack of fuller's soap washing and maturing up of believers. Not growing up makes the church very vulnerable to being blown about by winds of false doctrines, aka deception, which is causing it to fall away.

 

[Lizbeth]

The one asking the questions is leading the one providing the wrong answers into truth.

You don't see that everyday!

F2F

It's like where Jesus was baptized not because He Himself needed to be, having never sinned, but in order to fulfill all righteousness.

 

[Johann]

ἐν always takes the dative. Receiving actions -- whether the object of an active verb or the subject of a passive verb -- characterizes the objective dative, not the instrumental dative. Matt. 9:34 is clearly the latter. This may help: A Syntax of the Greek New Testament - The Dative case

at robertson greek grammar pdf - Google Search

 

[Wrangler]

It makes no sense to understand the incarnation by human logic, let alone the Trinity, an exercise in futility, you can only believe it by faith, trusting the Scripture.

There was no incarnation. There is nothing in Scripture that says this. And nothing in Scripture says it is important ti believe this! Supposing so is ignoring Deut 18:15-18 regarding God’s words put in a person among the people , affirmed at John 1:45 and ignoring John’s purpose statement in 20:31 + many other verses.

John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible. Relying on poetry from John’s prologue to invest doctrinally shows how desperate trinitarians are to manufacture support. Let me ask you this, how can words be with God - in his Unitarian nature - and be god at the same time?

1. Scripture contradicting Scripture?There is one God, the Father.
2. Simple play on words, with in one sense of word and be in another sense.

For instance, the bill is with Bill. It does not mean Bill is a 3-person person.

 

[Johann]

When it comes to Heb and Grk, the in-words en, bet- are not translated enough as at. So, you may be right partially. But for an instance like something being the instrument, dia is used with the genitive for an action. Dia means through or with instrumentally in the genitive case. I think I have argued this enough.

Also, I do not believe an instrumental dative is a possibility in Grk.

I believe you are incorrect.
Case dative¶
Summary¶
In Koiné Greek, the dative case ending can serve a wide range of functions. It can indicate the indirect object (or recipient) of a verbal action. It can also express a variety of adverbial meanings, including location, instrument, manner, or relation.

Article¶
The Dative case serves three primary functions. It may also indicate the direct object for some verbs

Indirect object or personal interest - It serves as the case of personal interest by indicating the indirect object of the verb. It points to whom something was done or for whom something was done. It can also be used to indicate someone or something that is being referred to by the verb, including possession. [See Dative_Indirect Object]

Location - It may indicate the location (in place, sphere, or time) of an event. [See Dative_location]

Instrumental - It may indicate the means, cause, manner, agent of an action. [See Dative_Instrumental]

Direct object- Some verbs take their direct object in the dative case. [See Dative_Direct_Object]

Dative – Instrumental¶
The Dative-Instrumental may be used to indicate the Means, Cause, Manner, or Agent by which an event occurs. The Dative-Instrumental may also be used to indicate an association with the main subject of the action. Making distinctions between Means, Cause, Manner, Agent, or Association can be very difficult and often the choice between one category and another is a matter of personal interpretation.

Instrumental of Means¶
The Instrumental of Means is used to indicate the means (or the process or method) by which the action of the verb is accomplished.

Example: Matthew 8:16¶
καὶ

ἐξέβαλεν

τὰ

πνεύματα

λόγῳ

kai

exebalen

ta

pneumata

logo

and

he cast out

the

spirit

with a word

He drove out the spirits with a word

Instrumental of Cause¶
The Instrumental of Cause is used to indicate the cause, the motivating event, or reason something occurred. Therefore, the key word “because” may help in translation.

Example: Romans 11:20¶
τῇ

ἀπιστίᾳ

ἐξεκλάσθησαν

tē

apistia

exeklasthēsan

because (of)

unbelief

they were broken off

Because of their unbelief they were broken off

Instrumental of Manner¶
The Instrumental of Manner is used to indicate the method or manner used to accomplish something. This is very closely related to the Instrumental of Means.

Example: 1 Corinthians 11:5¶
πᾶσα

δὲ

γυνὴ

προσευχομένη

ἢ

προφητεύουσα

ἀκατακαλύπτῳ

τῇ

κεφαλῇ

pasa

de

gynē

proseuchomenē

ē

prophēteuousa

akatakalyptō

tē

kephalē

every

but

woman

who prays

or

who prophecies

with uncovered

the

head

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered

Instrumental of Agent¶
The Instrumental of Agent is used with a verb in the middle or passive voice to express the agent or person by which an action is accomplished. Agency may also be expressed by using the preposition ὑπὸ with the genitive case or δία with the accusative case.

Thanks.

J.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What about the explicitly clear verses that affirm Jesus' preexistence? We don’t need to be scholars to recognize this truth.

A couple of verses seem to suggest something like that. Take Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees concerning Abraham, for instance.

John 8:56-58 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

A student of the New Testament is familiar with Jesus's several cryptic statements that the Pharisees misunderstood. Here, Jesus claims that Abraham rejoiced to see his day. The Pharisees understood Jesus to mean, "Abraham rejoiced in seeing my day," as if Abraham had personally encountered him.

Jesus makes a bold claim when he states that he existed, in some way, before Abraham was born. There are at least two interpretations of this statement. One possibility is that Jesus had an existence that predates Abraham’s birth. Alternatively, it could mean that God had scripted or planned for Jesus to come long before Abraham was born. This raises two additional possibilities: either Abraham encountered Jesus as a theophany or an angel, or he believed in God’s promise of a coming savior, who ultimately turned out to be Jesus.

What is the most reasonable and likely conclusion? Aside from the doctrine of the Trinity, the most plausible interpretation of Jesus' statement is that God made a promise to Abraham concerning a future savior, a decision made before Abraham was born. Similar concepts are found in the New Testament, particularly in passages mentioning events "before the foundation of the earth." This can be found in Rev 17:8, where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs without ambiguity.

God has scripted history so that it will progress according to his will. God decided that Jesus would be the focal point of history, and the world was created with him in mind. Jesus isn't claiming existence before Abraham; he is claiming to have eminence before Abraham was born.

Would you agree that the Logos/Messiah was merely a concept in the mind of YHWH? That certainly cannot align with Scripture.

It doesn't follow that since the concepts of "logos" and "messiah" are located in the same person, they are synonymous. These terms have different meanings, and they refer to different concepts.

I maintain that the meaning of "logos" in John chapter one is a promise God made, specifically his promise to live alongside his people and dwell among them. My Bible teacher believes it refers to a script for a history that God planned before the foundation of the world. I can see it either way. I need to think about it more.

I reject the notion that "ho logos" refers to an aspect of God's nature.

δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται-this directly points to the preexistent Messiah. If you are open to it, I can show you how the grammar clearly demonstrates that Jesus was far more than a passive "vessel," brother.

J.

I never claimed that Jesus is/was a passive vessel. Whatever gave you that idea?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Correct, the Trinity can't be understood, only believed.

And what good is believing something you don't understand?

 

[CadyandZoe]

@CadyandZoe


John 1:3
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
"All things were made through Him"

Joh 1:3 All things πάντα came into being ἐγένετο, through δι’ Him, αὐτοῦ and καὶ without χωρὶς Him αὐτοῦ not even οὐδὲ one [thing] ἕν came into being ἐγένετο that ὃ has come into being. γέγονεν.

ἐγένετο (egeneto): The aorist indicative middle/passive verb of γίνομαι, meaning "came into being" or "were made," indicates Jesus as the agent through whom creation occurred.


Colossians 1:16
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
"For by Him all things were created"

ἐκτίσθη (ektisthē): Aorist indicative passive verb of κτίζω, meaning "created," shows that all things were created in Him, with Him being the active sphere of creation.

τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
"All things have been created through Him and for Him"

ἔκτισται (ektistai): Perfect indicative middle/passive verb of κτίζω, emphasizing the completeness and enduring results of His creative work.

Hebrews 1:2
δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας
"Through whom also He made the worlds"

ἐποίησεν (epoiēsen): Aorist indicative active verb of ποιέω, meaning "made" or "created," indicating Jesus' direct and active role in creation.

1 Corinthians 8:6
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
"Through whom are all things, and we exist through Him"

δι’ οὗ (di’ hou): Preposition διά with the genitive case indicates the instrumental agency of Christ in creation and sustaining life.

These passages collectively demonstrate that Jesus is presented as the divine agent actively participating in the creation of all things. The verbs and grammar leave no room for the interpretation that He was merely passive or secondary in this work.

I just read this and believe it brother.

J.

Again, I argue that since Genesis attributes the act of creation to a command of God, then a person can't be the agent of creation. For this reason, your interpretations of those passages is mistaken. The Bible is without error and it is self-consistent. As such, nothing revealed later will contradict what came before.