Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Wrangler]

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.

Very well put.

 

[Johann]

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.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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.

Well said in my opinion.

 

[Lizbeth]

There was no incarnation. There is nothing in Scripture that says this. And nothing in Scripture says it is important ti believe this!

Oh yes there is plenty in scripture that speaks to this, but you need eyes to see it.

 

[Wrangler]

Oh yes there is plenty in scripture that speaks to this, but you need eyes to see it.

I prefer explicit words. For instance, God is not man. Numbers 23:19

 

[RLT63]

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.

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 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

I don't see how anyone can read John 1 and not conclude that Jesus pre existed before coming in the flesh and that Jesus is God

 

[APAK]

Very well put.

Actually verse 58 is the direct answer to verse 53, that most will not see ever, because they are not used to finding the context and following this entire discussion between the Pharisees and Jesus.

(Joh 8:53) Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died, and the prophets who died? Whom do you make yourself?
(Joh 8:54) Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, whom you say is your God.
(Joh 8:55) You have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say I know Him not, I shall be like you, a liar; but I know Him and keep His word.
(Joh 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and rejoiced.
(Joh 8:57) The Jews replied to him: You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?
(Joh 8:58) Jesus said to them: Truly, truly, I say to you: I am of higher status than Abraham ever was.

Jesus finally answered them when they asked Jesus in verse 53 if he was greater than Abraham and the prophets.

Yes, I am greater than Abraham ever was....as not only today, also before he was born, as part of God's plan....


And he said yes, he was, or I am greater or much more significant to God than Abraham ever was. And history bears this out of course.
It's not that difficult to comprehend why and what Jesus said and meant.

Now of course God having Jesus in mind before Abraham lived might be a bit of a red herring here in the discussion, although still true of course, as supplemental support.

And of course it would be totally bizarre to think that Jesus was saying he was his own God above his own Father, very peculiar indeed! Especially when the immediate discussion directly implicated the two Fathers: the one God, and the earthly human Father called Abraham.

In fact as we read later, Jesus accused the Pharisees of not even knowing or believing in Abraham as their Father. He said their true father was the evil one.

 

[ProDeo]

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

Because Scripture says so?

1. We are with 8+ billion currently on Earth, Scripture tells us God can read the minds of all 8 billion in a split of a second, can see through all the 8 billion intentions (whether those persons are aware or unaware) in that same split second. Do I understand that? No. But I believe it because Scripture says so.

2. Revelation 4 times speaks of the 7 spirits of God. Not 3 but 7. Do I understand that? No. But I believe it because Scripture says so.

3. Num 21:8 - And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”

It escapes me why of all solutions God choose a serpent and lift it up for the salvation of the people of Israel, John uses the Moses story linking it to Jesus (3:14) and then later Revelation (and other NT places) state -

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Do I understand that? No. But I believe it because Scripture says so.

4. I don't understand how it was possible for Elijah (who did not die) to return from heaven into the womb of Elisabeth, became John the Baptist (Matt 11:13-14) and had (perhaps needed?) to die a terrible death after all. But Scripture tells me so.

5. Likewise that Jesus was God in the human flesh, incomprehensible, but Scripture tells me so.

 

[Lizbeth]

I prefer explicit words. For instance, God is not man. Numbers 23:19

The natural man cannot perceive the things of God. And the carnal mind is enmity against God. If you haven't been born again I don't expect you to understand that. Man's logic can't lead him into all truth, we need the Holy Spirit for that. He illuminates the scriptures to our mind.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because Scripture says so?

1. We are with 8+ billion currently on Earth, Scripture tells us God can read the minds of all 8 billion in a split of a second, can see through all the 8 billion intentions (whether those persons are aware or unaware) in that same split second. Do I understand that? No. But I believe it because Scripture says so.

2. Revelation 4 times speaks of the 7 spirits of God. Not 3 but 7. Do I understand that? No. But I believe it because Scripture says so.

3. Num 21:8 - And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.”

It escapes me why of all solutions God choose a serpent and lift it up for the salvation of the people of Israel, John uses the Moses story linking it to Jesus (3:14) and then later Revelation (and other NT places) state -

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Do I understand that? No. But I believe it because Scripture says so.

4. I don't understand how it was possible for Elijah (who did not die) to return from heaven into the womb of Elisabeth, became John the Baptist (Matt 11:13-14) and had (perhaps needed?) to die a terrible death after all. But Scripture tells me so.

5. Likewise that Jesus was God in the human flesh, incomprehensible, but Scripture tells me so.

I see what you mean, but I think we are talking past each other. What you say is true: The Bible contains information about God that is hard or impossible for us to understand. I agree with you. Many things about God are impossible for us to comprehend.

Is the Trinity Doctrine objectively true but impossible to understand? Or might the Trinity Doctrine seem incomprehensible because it is false? If something is false, it may lack the necessary evidence or logical foundation to make sense. Without these, it can be difficult to understand or accept the concept.

Contradictory Information: False information might contradict well-established facts or knowledge. When something doesn't align with what we already know to be true, it can create confusion and be hard to understand.

I maintain that the Trinity Doctrine is incomprehensible because it lacks the necessary evidence and logical foundation to make sense. It also contradicts well-established prior revelation and it creates confusion because it uses terminology that has foundations in Plato.

 

[Wrangler]

The natural man cannot perceive the things of God.

Doesn’t mean the trinity is of God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The natural man cannot perceive the things of God. And the carnal mind is enmity against God. If you haven't been born again I don't expect you to understand that. Man's logic can't lead him into all truth, we need the Holy Spirit for that. He illuminates the scriptures to our mind.

All of that is true, as it pertains to what we read in the Bible. But what about what we read from each other? If you don't understand what I said, is it fair for me to conclude that you aren't spiritually minded? I don't think so. When speaking with each other we must not blame the other person for miscommunication. And we shouldn't conclude that the other person is lacking spiritual discernment.

If I am unable to be understood, perhaps I need to improve my argument or my communication skills. I mean, maybe the other person lacks spiritual discernment, but I should never presume this is true about another person. Yes?

 

[MonoBiblical]

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

In a word, not at a word. Words that do things are Stoic and Valentinian nonsense

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

καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ what is good to a faithless one. The instrumental is καλῶς, and notice the verb doesn't match the number of καλῶς and is plural. This is very sloppy.

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

While unique and interesting, it is not instrumental. Would you believe kephla means chest?

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.

Accusative dia means and object goes inside in object and out the other end.

 

[Johann]

καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ what is good to a faithless one. The instrumental is καλῶς, and notice the verb doesn't match the number of καλῶς and is plural. This is very sloppy.

I had this feeling you don't know what you are talking about.

"καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ"
The phrase "καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ" does not translate to "what is good to a faithless one."

καλῶς: This is an adverb meaning "well" or "rightly," modifying the preceding or following clause. It cannot function as a noun or be an "instrumental" because adverbs do not decline and have no case.

τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ: This is a dative case noun phrase meaning "because of unbelief" (used causally here). It cannot be understood as "to a faithless one" in this context because it specifically expresses cause.

Instrumental Case Error:
The assertion that "καλῶς" is instrumental misunderstands Greek grammar. The Greek adverb "καλῶς" is not an instrumental form but a manner adverb describing how something is done or stated (e.g., "rightly," "well").

Verb Agreement Issue Misstated:

Your claim that "the verb doesn’t match the number of καλῶς and is plural" is nonsensical because "καλῶς" is an adverb and not a subject, noun, or pronoun.

The verb ἐξεκλάσθησαν ("they were broken off") is 3rd person plural and correctly agrees with its implied plural subject, the branches (in the broader context of Romans 11:20).

The Greek text in Romans 11:20 is grammatically precise:

καλῶς ("well") modifies the affirmation of the preceding statement.
τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν ("because of unbelief, they were broken off") is a clear causal construction.


The dative τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ functions causally, denoting the reason for the action of "breaking off."

καλῶς affirms that this breaking off was justifiable or appropriate.

Thus, your analysis claiming "καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ" means "what is good to a faithless one" and introducing the idea of an instrumental "καλῶς" is unfounded.

The Greek text is entirely logical and consistent with the standard use of Koine grammar.

Here, let me help you. I think @marks will agree.

Case dative — unfoldingWord® Greek Grammar 1 documentation

J.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I had this feeling you don't know what you are talking about.

"καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ"
The phrase "καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ" does not translate to "what is good to a faithless one."

καλῶς: This is an adverb meaning "well" or "rightly," modifying the preceding or following clause. It cannot function as a noun or be an "instrumental" because adverbs do not decline and have no case.

I know that it is an adverb. Goodly to the faithless one then.

τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ: This is a dative case noun phrase meaning "because of unbelief" (used causally here). It cannot be understood as "to a faithless one" in this context because it specifically expresses cause.

Unbelief is an effect. The dative is cased by an accusative. Those who broke off, the accusative, broke off into unbelief. To have unbelief be the cause is utter Gnosticism.

Instrumental Case Error:
The assertion that "καλῶς" is instrumental misunderstands Greek grammar. The Greek adverb "καλῶς" is not an instrumental form but a manner adverb describing how something is done or stated (e.g., "rightly," "well").

So you say, but it is right after an adverb.

Verb Agreement Issue Misstated:

Your claim that "the verb doesn’t match the number of καλῶς and is plural" is nonsensical because "καλῶς" is an adverb and not a subject, noun, or pronoun.

The verb ἐξεκλάσθησαν ("they were broken off") is 3rd person plural and correctly agrees with its implied plural subject, the branches (in the broader context of Romans 11:20).

The Greek text in Romans 11:20 is grammatically precise:
View attachment 55571
καλῶς ("well") modifies the affirmation of the preceding statement.
τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν ("because of unbelief, they were broken off") is a clear causal construction.

They broken off into unbelief. You are putting the cart before the horse.

The dative τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ functions causally, denoting the reason for the action of "breaking off."

It is the result not the cause.

καλῶς affirms that this breaking off was justifiable or appropriate.

And it was, since they are lame in their distrust of God afterward.

Thus, your analysis claiming "καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ" means "what is good to a faithless one" and introducing the idea of an instrumental "καλῶς" is unfounded.

The Greek text is entirely logical and consistent with the standard use of Koine grammar.

Here, let me help you. I think @marks will agree.

Case dative — unfoldingWord® Greek Grammar 1 documentation

J.

 

[Johann]

It is the result not the cause.

20. τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ—τῇ πίστει, dative marking the cause or occasion. Cf. Rom_11:30, Rom_4:20; 2Co_2:13; Blass, § 38. 2 (1898). For ἀπ. π., cf. Mrk_9:24.

Shalom-over and out-I'm tired of all the hackling going on here.

Late here in South Africa.

J.

 

[Lizbeth]

All of that is true, as it pertains to what we read in the Bible. But what about what we read from each other? If you don't understand what I said, is it fair for me to conclude that you aren't spiritually minded? I don't think so. When speaking with each other we must not blame the other person for miscommunication. And we shouldn't conclude that the other person is lacking spiritual discernment.

If I am unable to be understood, perhaps I need to improve my argument or my communication skills. I mean, maybe the other person lacks spiritual discernment, but I should never presume this is true about another person. Yes?

Sister one can often discern when someone is not spiritually minded by the things they say and their approach to scripture. It's not an accusation or insult to say or think that someone needs to be born again and receive the Holy Spirit, it is more like a hope and suggestion for them to seek that. (Or perhaps they once had been but lost it and need to return to the true gospel and Christ.)

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't see how anyone can read John 1 and not conclude that Jesus pre existed before coming in the flesh and that Jesus is God

Debating two clear cases in point is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.
You must hate your mother and father to be a disciple of Christ..
Really? Should we do that?
Should rich people just give up because it is harder for them to get to Heaven? They would save a lot in not giving to charity.

God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son….
If He was pre-existent then He was not His Son in the Old Testament, so it would be God so loved the world that He told the God Yeshua to go jumbo into Miriam’s womb. Or Yeshua converted Himself to Yahweh’s sperm and He cast it into Miriam’s womb.

 

[Aunty Jane]

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.

Interestingly, Jesus was never supposed to be part of that history……his role as Messiah and Redeemer came as a result of Adam’s disobedience….it was not something God planned from the beginning…..everything he does is perfect…without defect, but giving his created “sons” (both in heaven and on earth) free will was both a blessing and a curse……blessed if they obeyed, but cursed if they abused the privilege.

Can we envision what the Creator first purposed for the human race, created last of all, as those who would be caretakers and overseers of all that God had brought into existence here. Nature is designed is take care of itself, but with the human touch, humans alone created in God’s image, were to decorate the earth and transform it into a paradise, as God had demonstrated in Eden…..they were to spread the boundaries of their paradise home and fill the earth with their children.….they would then maintain it as a beautiful jewel in space, which is what humans have called it from that vantage point….with no sin or death to spoil any of it.

Can we even imagine how amazing life could have been? Yet free will was challenged and abused so that important life lessons were necessary if free will was to be retained as the gift it was meant to be.

Remember too that the first rebel was not human….so the lesson had to be played out in Universal time, not earth time. (2 Pete 3:8) The angels were as much a part of this lesson as we humans are. Precedents would then be created so that this abuse of free will could never happen again….in either realm.

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.

The word “logos”, has several meanings….
According to Strongs…..it means….

“of speech

1. a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
2. what someone has said
   
   1. a word
   2. the sayings of God
   3. decree, mandate or order
   4. of the moral precepts given by God
   5. Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
   6. what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim.”

So used as a title, as it is with Jesus, it means that he was God’s spokesman….one who spoke God’s words to man…..and his title applied even before his earthly mission. He was the angelic spokesman for God all through man’s history.
For example, when Abraham and Sarah were visited by three angels to inform them of Isaac’s birth, one of them spoke as “Yahweh….yet the Bible clearly states that “no man has ever seen God” (John 1:18) so the logos has worked at his Father’s side, conveying his words to his earthly servants. (Gen 18)

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

It never did. The “logos” was the one who always spoke for God whenever there was communication needed to be given to those on earth, now hindered from approach to God by sin.

Our appointed “mediator” is Jesus, so that our prayers can go to God through him. He is a real person, who has existed as a spirit since his creation, (Rev 3:14) and also as a human person as man’s redeemer.

Those chosen for a role in heaven, (Rev 20:6) will have that experience in reverse…..having been born as humans, they were to be transformed into spirit beings (born again) at his return. (1 Thess 4:13-17)

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

I don’t think God withholds understanding from anyone to whom he chooses to reveal his truth.
It is not the ones with God’s spirit who are arguing for an unscriptural doctrine here, but those who whom God has abandoned, are the ones who struggle for clarity.
If those who want to believe that which is not true and they are stubbornly holding onto their delusion as though it were truth….there is a reason for that….

2 Thess 2:9-12….
”But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deceptive influence (strong delusion) mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.”

In contemplating that statement, think about what it means for those who hang onto the “delusion” (deception) because God allows them to condemn themselves. He allows their hearts to remain deceived.….they will offer their excuses on the day of judgment, but they will be rejected. (Matt 7:21-23)

This is serious stuff…..

 

[RedFan]

Our appointed “mediator” is Jesus, so that our prayers can go to God through him.

Why do our prayers need mediation? What's wrong with approaching the Chief Grand Poohbah in prayer directly (whether or not we add "In Jesus's name" as a closing)?