Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[GodsGrace]

Well thats the first issue. A catholic school..

Again, If you study the word. you will see the lord God of Israel was sent by the father and his spirit (Is 48) You would see Jesus made the claim, before abraham came to be, he always existed. You would see Thomas calling him God. and jesus did not correct him..

I mean.. Study the word..

EG....
The CC knows about the Trinity really well...who do you think defined it at the time of the early church?
The CC which has been around from the beginning. Pure history.

As to @Rich R , I did write to him explaining that 12 years of Catholic schooling will do no good in any way.
Unless a person studies Catholic theology as an adult...the elementary and high school will be of no service.

Other than these two comments ..of course I agree with you.

 

[Rich R]

Well thats the first issue. A catholic school..

Not sure why attending a Catholic school means I don't under stand the trinity doctrine. But I understand there are other "flavors" of the doctrine. Having studied the word for 50 years, I've seen that the phrase "son of God" is used some 50 times whereas the phrase "God the Son" is noticeably absent. I've also studied church history and know that the germ of the trinity doctrine as well as all the terminology (including "God the Son") used to "prove" it came from the School of Alexandria. Their expressed goal was to harmonize the scriptures with Greek philosophy. The Greeks, unlike the Hebrews, were fond of trinities. That's easy to verify. It's church history 101.

Again, If you study the word. you will see the lord God of Israel was sent by the father and his spirit (Is 48)

There is nothing even remotely there that says, "the God of Israel was sent by his father." Who is the father of God anyway? Most of the Greek gods had Fathers; but Yahweh having a father?

You would see Jesus made the claim, before abraham came to be, he always existed. You would see Thomas calling him God. and jesus did not correct him..

I mean.. Study the word..

Adam, Noah, and others were also before Abraham. Would you say that means they all always existed or that they existed before Abraham? Changing "before" into "always existing" is eisegesis.

 

[Wrangler]

Again, If you study the word. you will see the lord God of Israel was sent by the father and his spirit (Is 48) You would see Jesus made the claim, before abraham came to be, he always existed. You would see Thomas calling him God. and jesus did not correct him..

Extreme eisegesis at every turn. The Father is the LORD God of Israel. "I am" is not a claim of always existing. Thomas called Jesus "my" God, which is merely an exclamatory statement and not a narrative declaration that Jesus is God incarnate.

We know this because just a couple of verses later John gives his purpose statement for writing the Gospel. It aligns with the other 3 in that it is to proclaim who the Son of God is, who was raised by God. John 5:44 Jesus explicitly states the Father is God alone, confirms this in 17:3, i.e., the only true God. Your claim implies Jesus, our Lord, is a liar.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not sure why attending a Catholic school means I don't under stand the trinity doctrine. But I understand there are other "flavors" of the doctrine. Having studied the word for 50 years, I've seen that the phrase "son of God" is used some 50 times whereas the phrase "God the Son" is noticeably absent. I've also studied church history and know that the germ of the trinity doctrine as well as all the terminology (including "God the Son") used to "prove" it came from the School of Alexandria. Their expressed goal was to harmonize the scriptures with Greek philosophy. The Greeks, unlike the Hebrews, were fond of trinities. That's easy to verify. It's church history 101.

There is nothing even remotely there that says, "the God of Is was sent by his father." Who is the father of God anyway? Most of the Greek gods had Fathers; but Yahweh having a father?

Adam, Noah, and others were also before Abraham. Would you say that means they all always existed or that they existed before Abraham? Changing "before" into "always existing" is eisegesis.

Adam, Noah and others did not state I AM and were put on a cross for it.

Secondly,,,,which church history did you study?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me instead of writings by the ECF's.

Could you post your source for the outrageous statements you've made regarding church history since I've met a few Protestants that might be reading the same book you are.

The TERM Trinity was diviced by man to explain Jesus.

The TRINITY is found through scripture.
That Jesus is God cannot be denied.

Please explain the following:

Luke 22:67-71
67“If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
68and if I ask a question, you will not answer.
69“But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”
70And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”
71Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

 

[Lizbeth]

You never answered the question....if Jesus was God, then he would 100% know the hour, day and time of his return...he does not...therefore he couldn’t possibly be God....that is my belief so far....sorry...I’m going by the word...not man’s / woman’s understanding of scripture.

The Holy Spirit is Gods Living Witness...he testifies Of God the Father and he testifies Of Jesus the Son to our spirit/ heart.....sorry that you don’t understand that...I do....we believe differently..on the subject of the trinity...

Jesus not knowing the time and hour of his return, has sold me...I guess I am now a non trinitarian....sorry that it upsets you....I can’t see any further discussion to be honest....I’m sold on that fact, plus it’s very much Biblical.....bye....

I think this is actually simple sister, but of course we need the Holy Spirit to help us. Even though He was "God manifest in the flesh", being found in the form of a man Jesus set aside, as it were, His deity, because this was the will of the Father that He do so until after His death and resurrection. That meant He set aside His omniscience as well, and submitted Himself under the Father in humble reliance on the Father for everything. This also set the example and made the way that we would also rely on the Holy Spirit and not on our selves. Everything Jesus knew would have been revealed to Him by the Father, and the Father had chosen not to reveal the day/hour of His return to Him, at least while He was still on earth.

Hope that is helpful and also that you will seek the Lord for understanding of this passage and all its implications:

Phl 2:5-11

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Rich R]

Adam, Noah and others did not state I AM and were put on a cross for it.

Several people in the Bible other than Jesus uttered the phrase, "ego eimi" (the Greek I am). I say it myself all the time and I hear it from others. Crucifixion was a common way to execute people in those days. Didn't make any of them God.

The context of John 8 is relevant.

Secondly,,,,which church history did you study?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me instead of writings by the ECF's.

Could you post your source for the outrageous statements you've made regarding church history since I've met a few Protestants that might be reading the same book you are.

There is no church history that would say anything other than Athanasius was from the School of Alexandria. It doesn't matter where you look, that's what you'll find and that's the way it was. By the way, many of the ECFs were also from that same school. If you like harmonizing Greek philosophy with the scriptures, they're the ones to go with.

The TERM Trinity was diviced by man to explain Jesus.

The scriptures did a fine job all by itself to explain that Jesus was the son of God. They didn't need to include Greek philosophy.

The TRINITY is found through scripture.
That Jesus is God cannot be denied.

Well, lots of Christians do deny that Jesus is God, so it must be possible.

Please explain the following:

Luke 22:67-71
67“If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
68and if I ask a question, you will not answer.
69“But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”
70And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”
71Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

You honestly don't see the difference in meaning between the Biblical "son of God" and the extra-biblical "God the Son?" If not, there's no way I could explain the meaning of simple words to you. I would if I could, but you ought to be able to see it for yourself.

 

[GodsGrace]

Several people in the Bible other than Jesus uttered the phrase, "ego eimi"

Could you post some of the verses please? (of others in the bible saying they are the I AM).
I can't remember anyone in the bible saying they were the I AM.
And you didn't reply to what it means....which helps one to understand WHY Jesus used the term.
It means:
I WAS
I AM
I WILL BE

IOW,,, it's the ETERNAL I AM.

(the Greek I am). I say it myself all the time and I hear it from others. Crucifixion was a common way to execute people in those days. Didn't make any of them God.

Thanks for the info.
I'll make an effort to remember it.

What does that have to do with anything?!

The context of John 8 is relevant.

Why? What is the context?

There is no church history that would say anything other than Athanasius was from the School of Alexandria.

Maybe he was. What difference does it make to what ALL OF THE CHURCH FATHERS believed about Jesus.
I already posted their writings to you......
So you don't accept what the Apostles believed?
You feel that YOU know more than they did?
The persons the Apostles taught were also wrong?

It doesn't matter where you look, that's what you'll find and that's the way it was. By the way, many of the ECFs were also from that same school. If you like harmonizing Greek philosophy with the scriptures, they're the ones to go with.

Rich,,,,the ECFs harmonized with what they knew about Jesus.
Greek philosophy might have been discussed because that's the time they lived in
BUT NO CHRISIAN DOCTRINE was based on Greek Philosophy.

Wow. That Catholic schooling was terrible.
Or did you read some book on your own?
I already asked...no reply from you.
Maybe you should stop reading weird books?

The scriptures did a fine job all by itself to explain that Jesus was the son of God. They didn't need to include Greek philosophy.

They didn't.

Well, lots of Christians do deny that Jesus is God, so it must be possible.

No Rich. The Christians that deny Jesus is God ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.
Think about that.
What makes you Christian if you don't follow Christian beliefs?

You honestly don't see the difference in meaning between the Biblical "son of God" and the extra-biblical "God the Son?" If not, there's no way I could explain the meaning of simple words to you. I would if I could, but you ought to be able to see it for yourself.

Thanks for wanting to teach me that Jesus is not the Son of God but I'll go by what JESUS HIMSELF said and the Apostles and those that came after them.

Perhaps you could explain the following....you keep avoiding scripture:
Thanks.

Luke 22:66-71
66When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying,
67“If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
68and if I ask a question, you will not answer.
69“But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”
70And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”
71Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

 

[Rich R]

Could you post some of the verses please? (of others in the bible saying they are the I AM).
I can't remember anyone in the bible saying they were the I AM.
And you didn't reply to what it means....which helps one to understand WHY Jesus used the term.
It means:
I WAS
I AM
I WILL BE

IOW,,, it's the ETERNAL I AM.

The is no "the I am" anywhere in the scripture. You're inserting "the" where it isn't there.

Thanks for the info.
I'll make an effort to remember it.

What does that have to do with anything?!

Read your own post. You brought up the crucifixion as though Jesus' crucifixion made him God. I'm just point out that crucifixion does not make anyone God.

Why? What is the context?

In the text.

Maybe he was. What difference does it make to what ALL OF THE CHURCH FATHERS believed about Jesus.
I already posted their writings to you......
So you don't accept what the Apostles believed?
You feel that YOU know more than they did?
The persons the Apostles taught were also wrong?

By Apostles, I assume you mean those specifically mentioned in the Bible. None of them are called "church fathers" in the scriptures.

Rich,,,,the ECFs harmonized with what they knew about Jesus.
Greek philosophy might have been discussed because that's the time they lived in
BUT NO CHRISIAN DOCTRINE was based on Greek Philosophy.

Church history says otherwise.

Wow. That Catholic schooling was terrible.
Or did you read some book on your own?
I already asked...no reply from you.
Maybe you should stop reading weird books?

What weird books do you think I'm reading?

They didn't.

No Rich. The Christians that deny Jesus is God ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.

Chapter and verse please.

Think about that.
What makes you Christian if you don't follow Christian beliefs?

Christian beliefs defined by who? The Bible never calls Jesus God the Son, nor does it mention a trinity.

Thanks for wanting to teach me that Jesus is not the Son of God but I'll go by what JESUS HIMSELF said and the Apostles and those that came after them.

Perhaps you could explain the following....you keep avoiding scripture:
Thanks.

Luke 22:66-71
66When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying,
67“If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;
68and if I ask a question, you will not answer.
69“But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.”
70And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.”
71Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

Pretty sure I did answer that, but here it is again:

That in no way says Jesus is God. It says it is the son of God. You don't see the difference?

Do you have any idea on what it even means to sit on the right hand of a superior in the Bible?

 

[GodsGrace]

The is no "the I am" anywhere in the scripture. You're inserting "the" where it isn't there.

Read your own post. You brought up the crucifixion as though Jesus' crucifixion made him God. I'm just point out that crucifixion does not make anyone God.

In the text.

By Apostles, I assume you mean those specifically mentioned in the Bible. None of them are called "church fathers" in the scriptures.

Church history says otherwise.

What weird books do you think I'm reading?

Chapter and verse please.

Christian beliefs defined by who? The Bible never calls Jesus God the Son, nor does it mention a trinity.

Pretty sure I did answer that, but here it is again:

That in no way says Jesus is God. It says it is the son of God. You don't see the difference?

Do you have any idea on what it even means to sit on the right hand of a superior in the Bible?

I give up Rich.
There's a communication gap here and I just don't have the time.
'sorry.

 

[Wrangler]

I give up Rich.
There's a communication gap here and I just don't have the time.
'sorry.

There’s no communication gap. You make stuff up that contradicts Scripture and that has been pointed out along with questions you don’t want to answer. For instance.

The Christians that deny Jesus is God ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.

Chapter and verse please?????

I put it thus way; what verse teaches that:

1. Jesus is God?
2. One is not a Christian unless they believe Jesus is God?

 

[Rich R]

I give up Rich.
There's a communication gap here and I just don't have the time.
'sorry.

No need to be sorry. I agree with you, it certainly is easy to waste a lot of time in forums. I often regret the amount of time I waste.

 

[Ritajanice]

I think this is actually simple sister, but of course we need the Holy Spirit to help us.

According to you it’s simple ,Sister, of course we need heart revelation from the Holy Spirit, which it appears that we both believe that we have received such revelation.

Thereby we are both opposites of what we believe we have received ....you...trinitarian..RJ...non trinitarian.

Even though He was "God manifest in the flesh", being found in the form of a man Jesus set aside, as it were, His deity, because this was the will of the Father that He do so until after His death and resurrection. That meant He set aside His omniscience as well, and submitted Himself under the Father in humble reliance on the Father for everything. This also set the example and made the way that we would also rely on the Holy Spirit and not on our selves. Everything Jesus knew would have been revealed to Him by the Father, and the Father had chosen not to reveal the day/hour of His return to Him, at least while He was still on earth.

Yes Lizbeth, all according to you and your own understanding of said scripture, ...your opinion my friend.

Which you are trying to tell/ persuade me to believe....ain’t happening Sis, my heart/ spirit / mind...is only open to heart revelation from the Spirit....thanks for taking the time though to post your opinion / belief....

Here is mine.( opinion/ belief).according to the scripture that I have been lead to read and understand, the Holy Spirit has confirmed to me ,that Jesus is not fully God, that is my opinion/ belief ....plus I have posted much scripture saying that we have only “ one Father God”...the Holy Spirit has testified of the truth to my heart/ spirit..again that is “ my belief “ Lizbeth.....God is my Spirit Father.

Jesus is my Spirit Brother....

Hope that is helpful and also that you will seek the Lord for understanding of this passage and all its implications:

Phl 2:5-11

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

As a Born Again we grow in the mind of Christ, because he represents the Father, everything about Jesus we follow , he is 100% representation of his Father...he is not the Father, ..we are partakers Of the divine nature, we are not fully Jesus, we are spiritually Born Again, Lizbeth?

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Again this can be interpreted either way that you sway or believe as a non trinitarian..or a trinitarian.

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Bible says that God is greater than Jesus

‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28)

‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)


Now you have a little think on that ,Sister.

Edit to add.....Father God, I thank you that you sent your only Son to the cross, I thank you that he was a wonderful obedient/ fully surrendered his will over to everything that you asked of him, his Spirit was in direct contact with yours, His Spirit was in complete harmony with yours...

If you hadn’t sent your Son to be our sin bearer, then there would never have been a way for us to be reunited back to you in spirit....by the death and resurrection of your Son, that is the only way back to you Father God....our spirit has been reunited back to you, when it became Born Again....

Jesus is my saviour...as I’ve already explained why, you are my Father God who sent Jesus to be the sin bearer to all those who will be reunited back to you in spirit......my thoughts/ testimony/ opinions/ belief.

 

[Ritajanice]

Not sure why attending a Catholic school means I don't under stand the trinity doctrine. But I understand there are other "flavors" of the doctrine. Having studied the word for 50 years, I've seen that the phrase "son of God" is used some 50 times whereas the phrase "God the Son" is noticeably absent. I've also studied church history and know that the germ of the trinity doctrine as well as all the terminology (including "God the Son") used to "prove" it came from the School of Alexandria. Their expressed goal was to harmonize the scriptures with Greek philosophy. The Greeks, unlike the Hebrews, were fond of trinities. That's easy to verify. It's church history 101.

There is nothing even remotely there that says, "the God of Israel was sent by his father." Who is the father of God anyway? Most of the Greek gods had Fathers; but Yahweh having a father?

Adam, Noah, and others were also before Abraham. Would you say that means they all always existed or that they existed before Abraham? Changing "before" into "always existing" is eisegesis.

Also the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are Gods children.

Does the Spirit testify with our spirit that we are the children of Jesus...I think not.
The Spirit testified with my spirit the death and resurrection of Jesus....he did not testify to my spirit that Jesus is my Spiritual Father....I have one Father in Spirit, His Name is GOD!!
Jesus was the first fruits....we are his spirit brothers and sisters...we follow his representation of the Father, of course we could never represent the Father like Jesus did as he was perfection in himself....as a sister/ brother, we are being transformed into his image...by the power who indwells our spirit, the Holy Spirit....a Born Again are partakers Of the divine nature..which stands to reason as our spirit has been birthed into the Spirit of Christ...Born Again is a Living spirit birth, it ain’t something that you can read into being..it comes by = supernatural divine heart revelation....Spirit gives birth to spirit.....who brings us to understanding scripture, ourselves, I think not...only the Spirit can reveal to our spirit the truth of Gods word.
Humans get it wrong as we well know....we have also been given the gift of discernment...we only have one teacher/ helper...his name in the Holy Spirit.

You have only got to look at all the denominations in this world to see the confusion..that is the enemies goal..to confuse and keep us away from God’s truth....you stay fully focused on the Spirit with those spiritual eyes and ears that we have...he will keep us on that narrow path....then remember the scheming ways of the enemy, anything we think that tries to take us away from God is Of the devil...

 

[Ritajanice]

No Rich. The Christians that deny Jesus is God ARE NOT CHRISTIAN

By whose testimony?

“ YOURS”....LOL....not by the Living testimony of the Holy Spirit....you lack that spiritual knowledge, imo..some things must be said ...you “LIE” which you have done in the Name Of Jesus...by saying that those who deny that Jesus isn’t God ARE NOT CHRISTIAN....what is a Christian?

You have even kept telling me I’m spirit this and spirit that...which means what?

Of course I’m Of The Spirit...I’m Born Of The Spirit....so why wouldn’t I be talking spirit talk?
Born Again of Gods Living seed?

A partaker Of the divine nature...?..how else could I possibly be transformed into Jesus image, do you actually think that reading a Bible will transform you into Jesus image?

Think again ,to be transformed into Jesus image, our spirit must be in his, Born Again?

How else do we communicate spiritually with God, if not Spirit to spirit?....why do you think that we must be Born Again to see the Kingdom Of God?

This here is what @GodsGrace said ...what Born Again means.

@GodsGrace said...I’ve posted what she said in bold and underlined it...can you see the word of God in what she posted....nope!....

I'd have to agree with @Angelina.
Born Again is NOT a denomination.
It's a state of being....with God.

You can say you're a born again follower of Christ..it's OK.
Some good portion of the Flower Children back in the 60's were following Christ.
Unfortunately, this is not what defines you as Christian




Ritajanice..then goes on to ask her to explain what that means, when in scripture it says NO such thing.

She has posted what she believes it means..her own opinion of what it means...non scriptural nonsense...confusing non scriptural nonsense from her own mouth....not from the mouth of God......then when I asked her to explain it...I then got her answer, you will have to ask God.

Can you not see how confused you are @GodsGrace ....you posted non scriptural evidence on what it means to be “ Born Again “.....I pray that the Spirit brings you to heart revelation on what it means to be Born Of The Spirit...it’s taken 33 yrs so far to bring me to it’s true meaning....so I do understand that you may not be ready in your spirit to understand this spiritual truth yet ...and it is truth..as Gods word confirms this truth.....seek him out with all of your heart for there is where you will find him.....make sure you come to him with sincerity of heart...otherwise it won’t work.....speaking from experience...

Also @GodsGrace i am a Born Again who speaks in the spirit.....I speak whatever I hear the Spirit testifying with my spirit, his words come out of my mouth...I’ve also explained about the old man in us...?

A Born Again should become more and more like Jesus in nature, the old man becomes less/ decreases ...the new man becomes evident/ increases.

I suggest that you ask the Spirit to help you with your old man, as he’s still highly evident on your posts.

Old man talk...GG said...GG said....No Rich. The Christians that deny Jesus is God ARE NOT CHRISTIAN

She also said @Wrangler I thought you were half intelligent .many of your posts are full of criticism and put downs to other members.....of course that’s worldly talk,it’s far from Godly talk......you see GG as we grow in Christ, in spirit, our spirit becomes extra sensitive to Jesus Spirit and how he would address members.

Don’t get me wrong, it sounds like I’m judging you, I’m not, I’m trying to help you , as I’m also judging myself...I used to be a terrible representative for Christ, my talk on here was appalling at times....do you understand why my talk was appalling at times GG...?....

We are being conformed into Jesus image...the Spirit is at work in our spirit all day every day...as we are Born Again...



When I look back at my very old posts, I see that old man in me, who was extremely evident on the forum..




Just trying to help you be more self aware...in Jesus Name...Amen!

 

[TheHC]

There's no difference between "The Word was God" and "God was the Word".

You are not being entirely honest here.
Where’s the definite article? It’s there in the first instance of theos, but not the second.

Your statement…

“In Jn. 1:1 we read, "Ἐν (In) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς τὸν (with) θεόν (God), καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word).”

…neglects the rendering of “τὸν(the)”
as in “the word was with the god”, but no definite article before the second god?

(BTW, there are no capital letters)

So really, the text reads, “in beginning was the word; and the word was with the god, and [~] god was the word.”

If John meant that the Word was the God that the Word was “with” (which makes no sense anyways), John would have ended the sentence, “and the word was the god.”
But he didn’t…
Since Greek employs no indefinite articles (“a”, or “an”), such usage of the definite article “the” — or lack thereof — is quite important.

(How come you overlooked the definite article? Could it be bias?)

Because of this sentence structure, highly esteemed trinitarian scholar
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

The fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence (“…and god was the word”) is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek, is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. For example, at John 6:70, both The Jerusalem Bible and the King James refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

Let’s not overlook important things, ok, cousin?

 

[Wrangler]

(How come you overlooked the definite article? Could it be bias?)

The reason the definite article is overlooked is because the "best evidence" that Jesus is God is no evidence at all.

Jesus is not the word and the Bible does not say he is either the word or God. To get around this, they seek to invoke logic with this invalid premise, i.e., "back door" rationalization, relying on their own understanding rather than the explicit teachings of Scripture.
P1. The word is a god.
P2. The word was made flesh.
C.

 

[Ritajanice]

Jesus is not the word and the Bible does not say he is either the word or God

Exactly....they add their own jesus to the word...

Praise God for discernment.and Gods Living testimony his Holy Spirit, who brings us to Gods truth.in spirit...not through reading a Bible in the human natural mind/ understanding....then bringing Gods word to their own truth....

The truth comes only by divine heart revelation truth....and no other....stating my opinion/ testimony/ belief, just as valid as anyone else’s...can’t be proven.

 

[Wrangler]

Exactly....they add their own jesus to the word...

This is analogous to Muhammad Ali calling himself 'The Greatest." Everyone knows this is his moniker. However, for clarification, there is a video of him clarifying he means among heavyweights. He admits the greatest boxer, pound for pound, is Sugar Ray Robinson.

In a different book from the gospel of John there is a title for Jesus stitched on his clothing. Some rely on this to rationalize a subset of the title, analogous to demanding Ali's proclamation does mean pound for pound - even though he explicitly denies this, like Jesus denying he is God when he says our Father is the only true God. (Not a very trinitarian thing to say for Jesus was a unitarian.)

IDOLATRY does not care for such "nuance" for they know Scriptural support for their IDOL is very thin. Hence, they rely not on God's actual words but their own understanding. Another poster replaced the words of Scripture when I asked who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son? His insolent answer: the Father.

They pretend Thomas proclaimed Jesus is God by deleting the word "my" from his statement and the fact that such exclamations are used today. (Upon witnessing a horrible accident, people might repeatedly exclaim, "Oh, my God." But this is not to be taken as a declarative statement that the accident is literally God. I compare Thomas' exclamation to the figurative expression when toast falls out of your hand butter side down; you are not literally declaring the toast is literally feces. LOL)

Another example is comparing the expressions <The Son of God> to their impudent dyslexia of reading it as <God The Son>. I point out the convenience of deleting the pesky OF. This reveals trinitarians recognize the importance of the ubiquitous juxtaposition of God - in his unitarian nature - from his son; they just rationalize in such instances adding, deleting or replacing God's word, whatever is needed. This is the intellectual integrity of trinitarianism. This is the anti-logic of trinitarianism.

 

[Magdala]

As you say, John says, "The word was God." But what he doesn't say is that the "word" is a person. The Greek word "logos" refers to a function of the mind and rationality, such as plan, argument, script, account, etc. How does a plan become flesh?

In Jn. 1:14 we read, "And the Word flesh became and dwelt among us", the same Word identified as God 13 verses prior in Jn. 1:1. Who sent the Word to become a human? The Thought (the Father, God). How did the Word become human? The Word was conceived by the Holy Spirit (God). What name was given to the Word (God) that became human? "Jesus".

Jesus [...] argued that he healed on the Sabbath because doing good on the Sabbath was expected of God.

Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath and said, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working", and "therefore the Jews (the Judaeans, a mixture of scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees) sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (Jn. 5:1-18, cf. Potmg: V2)

Jesus [...] defended his assertion that Abraham looked forward to the coming of Jesus because God planned to send Jesus as the means to the blessing of salvation before Abraham was born.

Jesus said that Abraham did see His day, as in prophetically, through a Grace of God, and that he rejoiced. That's why the Judaeans responded to Him asking, "You are not yet fifty years old and You are telling us that Abraham has seen You and You have seen him?", and Jesus answered in the affirmative explaining that He exists eternally, "[...] before Abraham was born I am" (Jn. 8:56-58, cf. Potmg: V4). Jesus's reply is significant, because only God says "I am" as He is eternal: "And God spoke to Moses, saying, l AM THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. And God said again to Moses, thus shalt thou say to the sons of Israel, the Lord God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, has sent me to you: this is My name for ever, and my memorial to generations of generations" (English translation from The Tanakh, Ex. 3:14-15). It was understood that Jesus said He's God, and thus they took up stones to throw at Him for "blasphemy". (Jn. 8:59, cf. Potmg: V4)

In this instance, their motive wasn't justice but envy and murder.

The motive for the Judaeans attempting to stone Jesus for "blasphemy" in the scene of Jn. 10:22-39 (cf. Potmg: V4) is made clear by them when they gave Him their explanation for doing so: "because you, being a man, make yourself God", right after He had stated that (I) He's the Son of God, (II) He and the Father are one, and (III) the Father is in Him, and that He is in the Father, and so on.

The Pharisee's accusation was based on their belief that the Messiah would be an angel or a theophany [...]

False. Prior to Jesus's trial, at one point Jesus asked the Pharisees, "According to you, what do you think of the Christ (Messiah)? Whose son is He?", and they answered, "the descendant of David", not "an angel, or a theophany". Jesus didn't correct them, because they answered rightly, but He did challenge the implications of their answer by quoting Ps. 110 and asking, "How, then, does David, inspired by God, call Him "Lord" saying: 'The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for You?' So if David calls the Christ "Lord", how can the Christ be his son?". Ps. 110, written by David, was about the Messiah. Breaking it down, David writes that the Lord (God) said to David's Lord (Christ) "sit at My right hand (the place of greatest honor). Jesus asked the Pharisees why David would call his "son," meaning his own descendant, "my Lord" who sits at the right hand of God, unless Christ has some significant status beyond being David's descendant. The Pharisees didn't respond. (Matt. 22:41-46, cf. Potmg: V5)

In addition to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, elders, scribes, and priests would've also been familiar with the Messianic prophecies, and thus also rightly believed that the Christ (Messiah) would be a descendant of David. Therefore, at Jesus's trial, the High Priest, Caiphas, and other members of the Sanhedrin present, would've understood that when he asked Jesus, "Are you the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God?", he was asking to see if Jesus would once again affirm that He's not only the Christ (Messiah), but God in the flesh as well (someone more than solely a descendant of king David). Jesus affirmed that He's the Christ (Messiah), and the Son of God, and thus they accused Him of "blasphemy", and called for His death. (Matt. 26:57-68, Lk. 22:66-71, cf. Potmg: V5)

There are other scenes show that Jesus is God as well, for example:

"[God] [...] alone treadeth upon the waves of the sea" (Job. 9:8)
[...] they saw Jesus walking on the sea (Jn. 6:19, cf. Potmg: V1)

[...] he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”
He who was dead came out [...]
The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, “What are we doing? For this man does many signs.
So from that day forward they took counsel that they might put him to death. (Jn. 11: 41-53, cf. Potmg: V5)

“Who are you looking for?” asks Jesus
They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
When therefore he said to them, “I am He,” they went backward, and fell to the ground. (Jn. 18:4-6, cf. Potmg: V5)

The phrase "son of God" indicates his position, i.e. second in authority to God.

When you say that Jesus's title "the Son of God" means "second in authority", what does that mean to you?

 

[Brakelite]

The reason the definite article is overlooked is because the "best evidence" that Jesus is God is no evidence at all.

Jesus is not the word and the Bible does not say he is either the word or God. To get around this, they seek to invoke logic with this invalid premise, i.e., "back door" rationalization, relying on their own understanding rather than the explicit teachings of Scripture.
P1. The word is a god.
P2. The word was made flesh.
C.

The best evidence that Jesus is God is that which we all agree on, that He is the Son of God. What we disagree on is the when that took place.
Was Jesus a Son by creation such as are the angels, and humans first experience of Jesus was in Bethlehem?
Or did He become Son by adoption such as are forgiven sinners,
or was He brought forth or begotten of the Father before anything else was created, and is therefore a literal ontological offspring of God. That would make Jesus God begotten . It also harmonises with the many scriptures that state that all things were created by the Father through the agency of His Son.

Believe that, and you don't need to go through all the tortuous inconsistencies and illogicality of grappling with the several versions of the trinity.