Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Wrangler]

@GodsGrace, can you answer these questions?

What do you make of this verse, There is one God, the Father?

The #1 question for trinitarians to answer is why do they treat this dogma as if it is the central message of Scripture that one's salvation depends on it when not only is absent but contradicts Scripture?

Here's a unitarian's answer:

1. There is one God, the Father is proof text that the trinity is false.
2. Trinitarians treat their dogma as the central message of Scripture because they subordinate the actual teachings of the Bible to their own understanding, i.e., manmade doctrine supersedes the revealed words of God.

Occam's razor. The teachings of Scripture are easy to understand and do not require elaborate terminology to make sense of it. It is the truth and the truth is simple. It's the lie that is complicated.

 

[Lizbeth]

That is correct...Jesus is not God the Father, the Source of all things. Jesus was begotten, and the Holy Spirit, proceeded from the Father .

We have two sides battling, and sometimes being nasty with each other, when each of them are on the extreme edges.

God the Father existed in eternity, having no beginning or end, and who, being spirit, could not create and enter into the physical realm without His Son, whom was brought forth by Him at the beginning of creation. Jesus was the start of creation. We cannot envisage how this could be but scripture and the apostolic fathers, the ones who were not apostate, said so and so we much accept it.

Phl 2:6-7

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

Jhn 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

2Ti 1:9

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

1Pe 1:20

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Isa 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Mat 1:22-23

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

I believe this is an issue that will divide the wheat from the tares in the end. Hindus accept that Jesus was a holy man, Islam accept and believe that Jesus was a prophet, and likewise New Agers. Only born again believers understand and believe that He is Divine. Even Judaism acknowledges the historical man Jesus, who they consider was lawfully put to death for blasphemy. That is what caused unbelieving Jews to persecute Him and the early church. Nothing new under the sun, what has been will be again.

 

[Ritajanice]

I believe this is an issue that will divide the wheat from the tares in the end

Please explain?

You class yourself as wheat do you? and those who don’t believe as you do are the tares?

Because anyone can see that’s what you’re referring to...thankfully that nonsense don’t work on me.
Another word for the above underlined and highlighted in black...is SUPERIOR NONSENSE!

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.


Praise God for the testimony of his Living Spirit, that belief in any trinity..does not save us from eternal damnation......The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are Gods children, no trinity belief is needed...we must be Born Again to see the Kingdom Of God.....Flesh gives birth to flesh.....Spirit gives birth to spirit....

Bible Verses That Indicate Jesus Is Not God The Creator

1. Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.
Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows.

2. Matthew 26:39
My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me, yet not as I will, but as Thou will.
Jesus’ will is likewise autonomous from God’s Will. Jesus is seeking acquiescence to God’s will.

3. John 5:26
For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
Jesus received his life from God. God received his life from no one. He is eternally self-existent.

4. John 5:30
By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me.
Jesus says, “by myself, I can do nothing.” This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. He is not trying to “please myself” but rather is seeking to “please the one who sent me.”

5. John 5:19
The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also.
Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by God. He is expressing obedience to God.

6. Mark 10:18
Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.
Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God.

7. John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.
This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God.

8. Matthew 6:9
Our Father, which art in Heaven.
He didn’t pray, Our Father, which art standing right here!”

9. Matthew 27:46
My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Inconceivable if he is God the Creator.

10. John 17:21-23
. . .that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . ..that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.
In this prayer Jesus defines the term “to be one.” It is clearly accomplished through the relationship of two autonomous beings. Christian believers are to model their relationship (to become one) after the relationship of God and Christ (as God and Christ are one). Notice that “to be one” does not mean to be “one and the same.”

11. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Paul declares that God put everything under Christ, except God himself. Instead God rules all things through Christ. (remember: “through him all things were made.”)

12. Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.
Jesus is the exact representation of his being. I send my representative to Congress. He is not me, myself. He is my representative.

13. Hebrews 4:15 (compared with James 1:13)
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.
Jesus has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he never sinned. See

James 1:13: When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt.
Jesus was tempted in every way, but God cannot be tempted. This is why Jesus said, “don’t call me good, none are good, only God.”

14. Hebrews 5:7-9
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Jesus had to walk a course of faith and obedience in order to achieve perfection. By achieving perfection, Jesus “became” the source of eternal salvation

 

[Ritajanice]

Trinitarians treat their dogma as the central message of Scripture because they subordinate the actual teachings of the Bible to their own understanding, i.e., manmade doctrine supersedes the revealed words of God.

That’s exactly what I was thinking...
You posted another truth below...imo.
Occam's razor. The teachings of Scripture are easy to understand and do not require elaborate terminology to make sense of it. It is the truth and the truth is simple. It's the lie that is complicated

 

[Hepzibah]

Phl 2:6-7

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

Jhn 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

2Ti 1:9

Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

1Pe 1:20

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Isa 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Mat 1:22-23

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

I believe this is an issue that will divide the wheat from the tares in the end. Hindus accept that Jesus was a holy man, Islam accept and believe that Jesus was a prophet, and likewise New Agers. Only born again believers understand and believe that He is Divine. Even Judaism acknowledges the historical man Jesus, who they consider was lawfully put to death for blasphemy. That is what caused unbelieving Jews to persecute Him and the early church. Nothing new under the sun, what has been will be again.

I don't see anything you quoted refuted my belief that the Father was in eternity then brought forth the Word, one with Himself, of equal divinity at the point of creation, so He was there before the world began as He joined in its creation. I believe in the Trinity but think you don't quite explain it like the early church.

You get confused when it says the beginning which is referring to creation not eternity which has no beginning.

 

[ProDeo]

The final compilation of the entire Bible into a single volume is attributed to Jerome, who completed the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible, around 400 AD. And he, Jerome either was instructed to, or did it by himself, altered words of the apostles. He added in only peculiar latinized words that not only has caused much chaos still today, he had no business in altering the original text of the NT.

That's sounds as a conspiracy, what's the evidence, which passages Jerome changed?

And more important, what's the true NT translation according to you?

 

[ProDeo]

Another often used vague verse trinitarians doctrinally invest in. This is an expression still in use today. Your mother and I are on the same page, we are of one mind. It does not mean we are a multi-person person.

If that's true there was no reason for the Jews to stone Jesus.

 

[Wrangler]

If that's true there was no reason for the Jews to stone Jesus.

Back door rationalization. The Jews had Jesus killed for blasphemy. Were they right in crucifying the son of God? If not, why do you pick and choose when to invoke them as the standard of right?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Could you please post support for your contention that Son of God means second in authority?
Thanks.

The phrase "Son of God" originates from the Davidic covenant, where God told David that he would have a son who would build the temple. In that context, God told David that "he would be a son to me." Upon reflection, David wrote Psalm 8, in which he marveled at the idea that God would assign such high exaltedness to a man (David) or a son of man (David's son).

Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of God" because he is a son of David and has been proven to be the coming Messiah through his resurrection from the dead. We also know that he is second in command according to Corinthians 15, where Paul argues that Jesus will reign until all of his enemies are placed under his feet, and then he will hand the kingdom over to God. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

could you post what you've stated above.....that the Jews were waiting on an angel as Messiah...(or a theophany).
Thanks.

The notion that the Jews anticipated an angelic Messiah is clear from Paul's letter to the Hebrews. In the first two chapters, Paul argues using the Old Testament that it was both expected and appropriate for the Messiah to be a man rather than an angel. Given that the Hebrews were drifting away from the faith based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that they previously believed the Messiah would be either an angel or a theophany.

Was it lawful to heal on a Saturday or do to ANY work on a Saturday?
No.
Did Jesus obey the commandments or did He break the commandments?

To understand this passage and others like it, we must become aware that the Pharisees were following a version of the Oral Torah, which is a compilation of Biblical interpretations by various Rabbi.

This is a case in point. Though healing on the Sabbath didn't break the Law of Moses, Jesus' action probably defeated a Rabbinic ruling. In this way, Jesus challenges a flaw or mistake in the Oral Law and tangentially challenges the Pharisaical basis for righteousness.

How would YOU solve the dilemma of Jesus working on a Saturday (no matter the reason, He was breaking the Law).

If I am right, Jesus obeyed Moses when he healed on a Saturday, although he may have challenged the Oral Law. In any case, Jesus challenged the Pharisaical understanding of the fourth commandment, which is typical behavior for Jesus. The Lord explicitly and forthrightly challenged the Pharisaical view of righteousness in the Sermon on the Mount.

Huh? Could you go over that again?
Who is called I AM in the tanak?

No one is called "I Am" in the Tanach. The name "Yahweh" doesn't mean "I am" as some suggest. The literal meaning of "Yahweh" is "he who is", which emphasizes his self-existence, in contradistinction with the Egyptian gods, who exist only in the minds of their followers.

Did Jesus say He was I AM?
What does I AM mean anyway?

The Lord has used clever wordplay, contrasting the verb tense of "to be": "Before Abraham WAS, I AM." The sentence can be taken more than one way, because it is a bit ambiguous taken out of context. We understand his meaning from his previous statement that Abraham rejoiced to see his (Jesus') day. Jesus' claimed that Abraham saw his day and was glad.

The statement indicates that Abraham, a key figure in religious history, anticipated the coming of a significant event or figure, referred to here as "My day." It implies that Abraham not only looked forward to this moment but also experienced joy upon witnessing it.

Since Jesus had not yet been born, the Pharisees naturally asked Him to clarify His statement: "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus responded with a somewhat cryptic reply: ". . . Before Abraham was born, I am.” Given that Jesus was not yet born when Abraham walked the earth, the reader understands that Jesus isn't speaking literally about himself.

If we consider the nuanced statement that Abraham anticipated Jesus' day, this allows for the possibility that Abraham anticipated a coming person who would fulfill God's promises without actually knowing his name or who he would be. If that is true, then we understand the "I AM" statement in terms of God's promise to Abraham. The Father is the "I AM" who promised Abraham the blessing of salvation, which predated both Abraham and Jesus but was fulfilled on Jesus' day after Abraham had died.

How did Abraham witness Jesus' day? To understand this we turn to another encounter between Jesus and the Sadducees concerning the resurrection. Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him. Jesus responded with another challenging answer. "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Matthew 22:32-33) Therefore, if Abraham was alive when Jesus spoke, then he was alive to witness Jesus' day.

Guess you know more than the Jews did !
Waiting on scripture that the Jews were waiting for an angel.

This is to be expected since the Jews living during the time when Jesus walked the earth didn't have access to the New Testament.

Are YOU and the FATHER one??

I leave that to others to answer.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Could you explain the difference between:
AND THE WORD WAS GOD
AND GOD WAS THE WORD.

Thanks.

We know from simple logic that if A = B then B = A. Therefore, the two statements you presented represent equality outside of a particular context. However, as Bible students, our goal is to ascertain what John meant by his words. We will undoubtedly misconstrue what John meant to say if we fail to consider the entire context of his statement.

Does it make sense to say that "the word was God?" Taken literally, the answer is no, not at all. Even Trinitarians don't take the sentence literally, given that they believe "logos" to be a name for one of the persons of the Trinity.

In this case, the two statements do not represent equality because the term "God" represents a state of being, while the term "Word" represents but one of three distinct persons comprising the single entity "God." God is not "the Word" as such. God is more than that. According to Trinitarians, God exists as all three persons simultaneously. God's attributes are three people who all share the same qualities. The Father, the Son and the Word are all eternal for instance.

Consider the two statements with amendments to clarify why they are not equal.

AND THE WORD (attribute) WAS GOD (the thing itself)
AND GOD (the thing itself) WAS THE WORD (attribute).

We can see the error if we substitute everyday items.

AND THE RED WAS THE APPLE.
AND THE APPLE WAS THE RED.

This is not a true equality because as we all know, "red" is an attribute of many things other than apples.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In Jn. 1:14 we read, "Καὶ (And) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) σὰρξ (flesh) ἐγένετο (became) καὶ (and) ἐσκήνωσεν (dwelt) ἐν (among) ἡμῖν (us) [...]" (Jn. 1:14), the same Word identified as God 13 verses prior in Jn. 1:1. Who sent the Word to become a man? The Thought (the Father, God). How did the Word become flesh? By the power of the Holy Spirit (God). What name was given to the Word (God) that became human? Jesus (the Word, the Son of the Thought/Father).

I'll respond to your other posts after work.

I understand John differently in this context. Whereas Trinitarians understand "logos" as a name for a person, I understand "logos" as a promise God made to Israel. According to God's word to Israel, he promised to be present with them and live with them. This promise became more tangible in Jesus Christ. This is what John means by "the word (promise) became flesh (realized)

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Rich, I need to correct something that you've stated above.
Others are reading along and I like to be clear.

I DID NOT SAY that my time here is a "waste of time".
I SAID.
"I don't have much time".

Please note that there's a huge difference between the statement I made and how YOU interpreted it.

If I thought I was wasting my time here,,,,I would not be here.

I just don't have A LOT OF TIME to be able to spend here.

Thanks.

 

[Magdala]

Whereas Trinitarians understand "logos" as a name for a person, I understand "logos" as a promise God made to Israel.

Trinitarians understand that the Word became human as John said: "And the Word flesh became and dwelt among us" (Jn. 1:14), the same Word identified as God 13 verses prior in Jn. 1:1. Who sent the Word to become human? The Thought (the Father, God). How did the Word become human? By the power of the Holy Spirit (God). What name was given to the Word (God) that became human? "Jesus".

 

[CadyandZoe]

Who sent the Word to become a man?

John doesn't say that the word was sent in that passage. He says the word "became" flesh in that passage. The concept of "becoming" necessarily indicates the process of change. Given that God never changes, this is evidence against Trinitarian belief that "logos" is a person.

How did the Word become flesh?

Given that "logos" is something like a promise or script, we understand the distinction as the difference between possible and actual.
A promise becomes actual when it is fulfilled. A script becomes actual when the actors play.

What name was given to the Word (God) that became human?

Jesus is the promise of God realized in history.

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

It means what Paul thinks it means. Review 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul asserts that Jesus will rule until all his enemies will be put under his feet and then Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God.

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?" (Matt. 22:41-46, cf. Potmg: V4).

Your objection does not disprove my statement because I never claimed that everyone believed Jesus would be a theophany. I could be mistaken, but I don’t think the Pharisees ever picked up stones to stone Jesus. If that is true, then Jesus was not addressing a group of people who believed that the Messiah would be a theophany in Matthew 22.

After a brief review of the New Testament, I found that John mentions "the Jews" who wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy. This group is distinct from the Pharisees. There is a difference between the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the scribes and the chief priests. Only the Sanhedrin had the authority to perform capital punishment.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Trinitarians understand that the Word became flesh (a human person) as John wrote:

Trinitarians do not derive their doctrine from what John said; they bring their doctrine to the passage. John does not say that the word is a person. He says that the word (promise, account, reason, etc) became flesh. John defines "word" in the context of Genesis chapter one where God speaks things into existence, such as "God said "Let there be light" and there was "light." In the context of Genesis, the word is a command, not a person.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

I am not sure I would go to any Catholic Church or school for much truth.

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?

Nice try

Us 48

12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob,
And Israel, My called:
I am He, I am the First,
I am also the Last.
13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth,
And My right hand has stretched out the heavens;
When I call to them,
They stand up together.
14 “All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear!
Who among them has declared these things?
The Lord loves him;
He shall do His pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
15 I, even I, have spoken;
Yes, I have called him,
I have brought him, and his way will prosper.
16 “Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord God and His Spirit
Have sent Me.”

Trinity in the OT. No getting away from t his

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 were not walking around when Jesus was. Note were they born in human flesh after abraham was.

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace, can you answer these questions?




Here's a unitarian's answer:

1. There is one God, the Father is proof text that the trinity is false.
2. Trinitarians treat their dogma as the central message of Scripture because they subordinate the actual teachings of the Bible to their own understanding, i.e., manmade doctrine supersedes the revealed words of God.

Occam's razor. The teachings of Scripture are easy to understand and do not require elaborate terminology to make sense of it. It is the truth and the truth is simple. It's the lie that is complicated.

I don't care what you believe .... you don't seem to understand this.

BUT

You cannot be defined as Christian based on what YOU believe....
You can only be defined as Christian based on what the church Jesus' established believes.

and YOU do NOT believe what Jesus taught.

 

[GodsGrace]

The phrase "Son of God" originates from the Davidic covenant, where God told David that he would have a son who would build the temple. In that context, God told David that "he would be a son to me." Upon reflection, David wrote Psalm 8, in which he marveled at the idea that God would assign such high exaltedness to a man (David) or a son of man (David's son).

Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of God" because he is a son of David and has been proven to be the coming Messiah through his resurrection from the dead. We also know that he is second in command according to Corinthians 15, where Paul argues that Jesus will reign until all of his enemies are placed under his feet, and then he will hand the kingdom over to God. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)


The notion that the Jews anticipated an angelic Messiah is clear from Paul's letter to the Hebrews. In the first two chapters, Paul argues using the Old Testament that it was both expected and appropriate for the Messiah to be a man rather than an angel. Given that the Hebrews were drifting away from the faith based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that they previously believed the Messiah would be either an angel or a theophany.

To understand this passage and others like it, we must become aware that the Pharisees were following a version of the Oral Torah, which is a compilation of Biblical interpretations by various Rabbi.

This is a case in point. Though healing on the Sabbath didn't break the Law of Moses, Jesus' action probably defeated a Rabbinic ruling. In this way, Jesus challenges a flaw or mistake in the Oral Law and tangentially challenges the Pharisaical basis for righteousness.


If I am right, Jesus obeyed Moses when he healed on a Saturday, although he may have challenged the Oral Law. In any case, Jesus challenged the Pharisaical understanding of the fourth commandment, which is typical behavior for Jesus. The Lord explicitly and forthrightly challenged the Pharisaical view of righteousness in the Sermon on the Mount.

No one is called "I Am" in the Tanach. The name "Yahweh" doesn't mean "I am" as some suggest. The literal meaning of "Yahweh" is "he who is", which emphasizes his self-existence, in contradistinction with the Egyptian gods, who exist only in the minds of their followers.

The Lord has used clever wordplay, contrasting the verb tense of "to be": "Before Abraham WAS, I AM." The sentence can be taken more than one way, because it is a bit ambiguous taken out of context. We understand his meaning from his previous statement that Abraham rejoiced to see his (Jesus') day. Jesus' claimed that Abraham saw his day and was glad.

The statement indicates that Abraham, a key figure in religious history, anticipated the coming of a significant event or figure, referred to here as "My day." It implies that Abraham not only looked forward to this moment but also experienced joy upon witnessing it.

Since Jesus had not yet been born, the Pharisees naturally asked Him to clarify His statement: "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus responded with a somewhat cryptic reply: ". . . Before Abraham was born, I am.” Given that Jesus was not yet born when Abraham walked the earth, the reader understands that Jesus isn't speaking literally about himself.

If we consider the nuanced statement that Abraham anticipated Jesus' day, this allows for the possibility that Abraham anticipated a coming person who would fulfill God's promises without actually knowing his name or who he would be. If that is true, then we understand the "I AM" statement in terms of God's promise to Abraham. The Father is the "I AM" who promised Abraham the blessing of salvation, which predated both Abraham and Jesus but was fulfilled on Jesus' day after Abraham had died.

How did Abraham witness Jesus' day? To understand this we turn to another encounter between Jesus and the Sadducees concerning the resurrection. Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him. Jesus responded with another challenging answer. "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Matthew 22:32-33) Therefore, if Abraham was alive when Jesus spoke, then he was alive to witness Jesus' day.



This is to be expected since the Jews living during the time when Jesus walked the earth didn't have access to the New Testament.

I leave that to others to answer.

C....your post is so riddled with error, misconceptions and who knows what else....
I can't tackle this.

I would recommend to you that you learn the Christian faith since you have the word CHRISTIAN under your avatar.

Also, I asked you for scripture...you personal opinion is of no interest to either me or anyone reading along.

I see no scripture in the above tirade - which- frankly, makes no sense.

 

[Lizbeth]

I don't see anything you quoted refuted my belief that the Father was in eternity then brought forth the Word, one with Himself, of equal divinity at the point of creation, so He was there before the world began as He joined in its creation. I believe in the Trinity but think you don't quite explain it like the early church.

You get confused when it says the beginning which is referring to creation not eternity which has no beginning.

On that point I was just pointing out that He was before the creation of the world. (And to my understanding that speaks of eternity.)

 

[GodsGrace]

We know from simple logic that if A = B then B = A.

Thanks. So you agree.

Therefore, the two statements you presented represent equality outside of a particular context. However, as Bible students, our goal is to ascertain what John meant by his words. We will undoubtedly misconstrue what John meant to say if we fail to consider the entire context of his statement.

Does it make sense to say that "the word was God?" Taken literally, the answer is no, not at all. Even Trinitarians don't take the sentence literally, given that they believe "logos" to be a name for one of the persons of the Trinity.

WHO believes LOGOS is the name of one of the Persons?

As I've already stated...
Study some more and then come back to report.

In this case, the two statements do not represent equality because the term "God" represents a state of being, while the term "Word" represents but one of three distinct persons comprising the single entity "God." God is not "the Word" as such. God is more than that. According to Trinitarians, God exists as all three persons simultaneously. God's attributes are three people who all share the same qualities. The Father, the Son and the Word are all eternal for instance.

Again:

GOD IS THE WORD.
THE WORD IS GOD.

Exactly the same.

Consider the two statements with amendments to clarify why they are not equal.

AND THE WORD (attribute) WAS GOD (the thing itself)
AND GOD (the thing itself) WAS THE WORD (attribute).

Again,,,thanks for agreeing.

THE SUN IS THE MOON.
THE MOON IS THE SUN.

They are each other.
Simple.

We can see the error if we substitute everyday items.

AND THE RED WAS THE APPLE.
AND THE APPLE WAS THE RED.

This is not a true equality because as we all know, "red" is an attribute of many things other than apples.

Wow.
No further comment.