Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[face2face]

@Johann, you have some challenging questions to answer, and I will be following up with you on them in the morning.

F2F

 

[Johann]

Correct, the personification of the Spirit and the use of personal pronouns are given to bring us closer to God and His Spirit Word. How do you expect His Power to be communicated?

He uses personification everywhere in His Word - I honestly thought with all your commentaries you would know this basic skill.

F2F

No commentaries- it seems you have a strong aversion to what is clearly written and are eager to reinterpret and redefine the plain, explicit reading of Scripture to align with your own dogma.

J.

 

[Brakelite]

Begotten means created, as all sons are, by definition.

Then Jesus wasn't the "only begotten son" if begotten means created right?

 

[face2face]

No commentaries- it seems you have a strong aversion to what is clearly written and are eager to reinterpret and redefine the plain, explicit reading of Scripture to align with your own dogma.

J.

No, when you are exposed to the Fathers Writ you gain an understanding of how He communicates. For instance:-

You would teach that sin is a person who receives wages.

Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord

I wouldn't, because unlike you, I understand how personification works. This applies to concepts like the Power of God (HS), Wisdom, Sin, and I could provide volumes of text to support that point if needed.

F2F

 

[Lizbeth]

When i describe the very words of men WHO KNEW HIM
you tell me WHO this sounds like .
When speaking of JESUS
it is written , HE was before all that was was created and by HIM were all things created . WHO DO THAT SOUND LIKE SISTER .
As a christain wrote long , long ago , speculated at least a thousand years
One wrote HE came to die on a cross made of wood
and yet had made the hill on which it stood . THAT THERE christain was RIGHT sister . march on sister . march on in the LORD .

Amen! Unfortunately the devil is very busy deceiving people and undermining the gospel and just Who Christ is.

No mere man, prophet or not, can save souls. According to holy writ, all over the bible, the Lord God is Saviour and saving souls is HIS domain.

Jesus is "God with us" - Emmanuel - who is Christ the LORD. "God saves" - Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus, the Christ.

But people need to first of all come to Him and receive Him to have their eyes opened and be able to "see" that.

 

[Johann]

No, when you are exposed to the Fathers Writ you gain an understanding of how He communicates. For instance:-

You would teach that sin is a person who receives wages.

Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord

I wouldn't, because unlike you, I understand how personification works. This applies to concepts like the Power of God (HS), Wisdom, Sin, and I could provide volumes of text to support that point if needed.

F2F

You definitely seem to have a problem, not rightly cutting straight the word of YHWH.

While personification is indeed a rhetorical device used in Scripture, the use of personal pronouns for the Holy Spirit is not merely personification but reflects His true personhood as described in the biblical text. In several passages, the Holy Spirit is not simply an abstract force or power; He is depicted with personal attributes, acting, speaking, and being grieved, which aligns syntactically with how personal beings are described in both Greek and Hebrew.

For instance, in John 16:13, the Greek pronoun ἐκεῖνος ("he") is used for the Holy Spirit, indicating a distinct, personal agent who guides, speaks, and reveals truth. This is not personification but a syntactical structure that attributes personal actions and volition to the Spirit, distinguishing Him from an impersonal force.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit is described as a helper (παράκλητος) in John 14:16, a term that implies relationship and agency, further affirming His personhood. If the Spirit were merely an impersonal force or abstract concept, one would expect more neutral language rather than the consistent use of personal pronouns and relational terms, which are grammatically distinct and significant.

Thus, while personification might occur in some biblical passages, the consistent use of personal pronouns (e.g., he, him) to refer to the Holy Spirit emphasizes the biblical portrayal of the Spirit as a person who engages in personal actions and relationships, and not as a mere figurative concept.

Again-
Arians (or Arianism)

Arians are followers of the heretical teachings of Arius, a 4th-century Christian priest who denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ, asserting that Jesus was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father. According to Arianism, Jesus was seen as a divine being but not truly God in the same way as the Father. This view was condemned by the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which affirmed the full deity of Christ.
Key reference: John 1:1-14 affirms that the Word (Jesus) was with God and was God, contradicting Arian views.

2. Unitarians
Unitarians are individuals or groups that reject the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically denying the full deity of Jesus Christ. They believe in the oneness of God and view Jesus as a great prophet or teacher but not as God Himself. They hold that God is one person (the Father), and Jesus is not part of the divine essence.
Key reference: John 14:28 (Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I"), but this verse must be understood in the context of the incarnation and Jesus' role in salvation, not as a denial of His deity.

3. Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God but rather the Son of God, a created being (the Archangel Michael) who was later incarnated as Jesus. They deny the Trinity and assert that Jesus is distinct from God the Father, rejecting His full divinity.
Key reference: Colossians 2:9 teaches that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," which contradicts Jehovah’s Witnesses' view of Jesus.

4. Christadelphians
The Christadelphians hold a belief similar to that of Unitarians, rejecting the full deity of Jesus Christ. They view Jesus as the Son of God, but not as divine or co-equal with the Father. They believe Jesus was fully human and did not pre-exist before His birth.
Key reference: John 1:1-14 affirms the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, in contrast to Christadelphian views.

5. Oneness Pentecostals (or Jesus Only Movement)
While Oneness Pentecostals believe in the divinity of Jesus, they reject the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They believe that God is a single person who manifested Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in different modes, and that Jesus is the full manifestation of God, but not a distinct person within the Trinity.
Key reference: John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") is often cited to defend the unity of God in Jesus.

6. Docetists (Historical Heresy)
Docetists are individuals who hold the view that Jesus only appeared to be human, but was actually fully divine and not truly incarnate. This was an early heresy in the church, which denied both the humanity and personhood of Jesus Christ. It is a form of Gnosticism that believed the physical world was evil, and thus, Jesus could not have truly taken on a physical body.
Key reference: 1 John 4:2-3 refutes this heresy, stating that those who confess Jesus Christ came in the flesh are of God.

7. Muslims
Muslims also deny the deity of Jesus, believing Him to be a prophet and a servant of Allah but not divine. In Islam, Jesus (Isa) is considered a key figure, but His crucifixion and divinity are denied.
Key reference: John 1:1-14 affirms Jesus' divine nature, which contrasts with Islamic teachings.

8. Modern Denialists
There are also various modern groups or individuals who deny the deity and personhood of Jesus, influenced by liberal theology or secular humanism. These individuals may reject biblical authority altogether or re-interpret Jesus as a moral teacher rather than the incarnate God.

Where do you think you "fit in?"

J.

 

[face2face]

You definitely seem to have a problem, not rightly cutting straight the word of YHWH.

J.

It's quite strange – you are shown to be mistaken on several points and topics, yet you never engage with the context of the discussion.

Are you aware of this pattern?

It seems like you've decided that personification is never used in the Word of God, and instead of addressing that, you bring up something completely unrelated.

Why do you respond this way?

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

A 4th question (unanswered)

It was the power of the Highest that "overshadowed" Mary in Luke 1:35.

However, if the Holy Spirit were a Person within the Godhead, then the Holy Spirit, rather than the Father, would be considered the true father of Jesus.

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

Okay so you have dismissed personification.

Here is another question 5th

When Jesus breathed on the disciples and they received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22, this language makes sense if a Power was being imparted, but seems less fitting if the Holy Spirit were understood as a divine Person.

"Agree / disagree?"

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

Sorry in a similar vain.

Likewise, the Holy Spirit was imparted through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17-19). Does this suggest the transmission of a divine Person within the Godhead?

To be clear, you believe this practice of laying on of hands held the Power to direct the Holy Spirit Person from Heaven into this recipient?

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

When God sent the Holy Spirit to anoint Jesus in Matt. 3:16 / Luke 4:18). Is it plausible that "God the Father" sent "God the Holy Spirit" to anoint "God the Son" with "God the Holy Spirit"?

 

[Johann]

Okay so you have dismissed personification.

Perhaps you should get some rest since it's nighttime where you are. I wouldn't want to keep you awake.

J.

 

[face2face]

In 17 epistles that begin with an acknowledgement of grace and peace, only one mentions the Holy Spirit, and then only as the means of sanctification, not as the source of grace. Why is there an acknowledgment of God and Christ, but not to the Holy Spirit, if the latter were a Person within the Godhead? Similarly, in the 11 instances of thanksgiving or blessing that follow these invocations in the epistles, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned even once.

F2F

 

[MatthewG]

Sometimes I believe that God is speaking through Jesus, and Jesus is sometimes Speaking for God. That is just my opinion. The man Jesus died on the cross. He was divine, he went to hell, and God rose his Son up from the dead by the holy spirit. Jesus was helped by the Holy Spirit in not giving in to temptation and therefore was sinless, but used his body, as a sacrifice for sin, which his blood was pure, and holy, and completed the law and the prophets because "He loved God, and loved his Neighbor as himself." He fulfilled the Law and prophets by these notions.

 

[face2face]

Perhaps you should get some rest since it's nighttime where you are. I wouldn't want to keep you awake.

J.

I'm just getting warmed up Johann.

We have many conundrums to solve tonight!

I've already outlined about 6-7 clear questions that highlight discrepancies in the doctrine you currently hold.

I'm wondering if you have ever considered them or will I receive another unrelated screen dump?

F2F

 

[Johann]

In 17 epistles that begin with an acknowledgement of grace and peace, only one mentions the Holy Spirit, and then only as the means of sanctification, not as the source of grace. Why is there an acknowledgment of God and Christ, but not to the Holy Spirit, if the latter were a Person within the Godhead? Similarly, in the 11 instances of thanksgiving or blessing that follow these invocations in the epistles, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned even once.

You should get some rest-the doctrine of the Triune Godhead makes perfect sense.

J.

 

[Lizbeth]

It's a half a truth @Wrangler


1Jn_5:7 There is some confusion in the English translations as to where 1Jn_5:6-8 begin and end. The portion of 1Jn_5:7 that is found in the KJV which says "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," is not found in the three major ancient uncial Greek manuscripts of the NT: Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), or Sinaiticus (א), nor in the Byzantine family of manuscripts. It only appears in four late minuscule manuscripts.

1. MS 61, dated in the 16th century

2. MS 88 dated in the 12th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand

3. MS 629, dated in the 14th or 15th century

4. MS 635, dated in the 11th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand
This verse is not quoted by any of the Early Church Fathers, even in their doctrinal debates over the Trinity. It is absent from all ancient versions except one late Latin manuscript family (Sixto-Clementine). It is not in the Old Latin or Jerome's Vulgate. It appears first in a treatise by the Spanish heretic Priscillian, who died in A.D. 385. It was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy in the 5th century.

tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima, “the Spirit and the water and the blood”) at the beginning of v. 8, the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”).

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49.

Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in ten late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. These mss range in date from the 10th century (221) to the 18th (2318). They include the following (with dates in parentheses) 221 (X), 177 (XI), 88 (XII), 429 (XIV), 629 (XIV), 636 (XV), 61 (ca.1520), 918 (XVI), 2473 (1634), and 2318 (XVIII).

There are minor variations among these codices. The earliest ms, codex 221, includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 177 (11th century), 88 (12th), 429 (14th), and 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). Codex 177’s Comma is in a marginal note that must be dated after 1551, the year of the first Greek New Testament with verse numbers added. The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries.

Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin).

This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (the Comma Johanneum) found a place in the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself.

He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order, but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns:

He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and in a form significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others. For a recent discussion of the Comma Johanneum, see Rodrigo Galiza and John W. Reeve, “The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8): The Status of Its Textual History and Theological Usage in English, Greek, and Latin,” AUSS 56 (2018) 63–89.

1 John 5

“For indeed the day is coming, burning like a furnace, and all the arrogant evildoers will be chaff. The coming day will burn them up,” says the Lord who rules over all. “It will not leave even a root or branch. But for you who respect my name, the sun of vindication will rise with healing...

netbible.org

BUT---

This verse is simply not part of the original inspired words of 1 John.
The biblical doctrine of one God (monotheism) but with three personal manifestations (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not affected by the rejection of this verse. Although it is true that the Bible never uses the word "trinity," many biblical passages speak of all three persons of the Godhead acting together:

1. at Jesus' baptism (Mat_3:16-17)
2. the great commission (Mat_28:19)
3. the Spirit sent (Joh_14:26)
4. Peter's Pentecost sermon (Act_2:33-34)
5. Paul's discussion of flesh and spirit (Rom_8:7-10)
6. Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts (1Co_12:4-6)
7. Paul's travel plans (2Co_1:21-22)
8. Paul's benediction (2Co_13:14)
9. Paul's discussion of the fullness of time (Gal_4:4-6)
10. Paul's prayer of praise to the Father (Eph_1:3-14)
11. Paul's discussion of the Gentiles' former alienation (Eph_2:18)
12. Paul's discussion of the oneness of God (Eph_4:4-6)
13. Paul's discussion of the kindness of God (Tit_3:4-6)
14. Peter's introduction (1Pe_1:2)

Thanks.

J.

I had forgotten about this already, and had only heard of it the first time a little while ago, golly. But amen, we don't need that specific verse because there are plenty of others.......what we do need is eyes to see and the witness of the Spirit within us to know who Christ is. It's a lovely passage there in 1 John 5, with or without v. 7.

 

[face2face]

You should get some rest-the doctrine of the Triune Godhead makes perfect sense.

J.

As I review these questions, I’m starting to see some that could stand alone as individual discussion points.

What worries me is that, despite the likely high average IQ of the Nicene Council members, they still produced one of the most convoluted and incomprehensible sets of teachings in human history. If this is "perfect sense" then you must have a very high IQ.

1 Corinthians 1:23-25 but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Amen!

 

[Johann]

I had forgotten about this already, and had only heard of it the first time a little while ago, golly. But amen, we don't need that specific verse because there are plenty of others.......what we do need is eyes to see and the witness of the Spirit within us to know who Christ is. It's a lovely passage there in 1 John 5, with or without v. 7.

Right you are @Lizbeth and the Triune Godhead is biblical-see if you agree with this.


Arians (or Arianism)
Arians are followers of the heretical teachings of Arius, a 4th-century Christian priest who denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ, asserting that Jesus was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father. According to Arianism, Jesus was seen as a divine being but not truly God in the same way as the Father. This view was condemned by the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which affirmed the full deity of Christ.

Key reference: John 1:1-14 affirms that the Word (Jesus) was with God and was God, contradicting Arian views.

2. Unitarians
Unitarians are individuals or groups that reject the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically denying the full deity of Jesus Christ. They believe in the oneness of God and view Jesus as a great prophet or teacher but not as God Himself. They hold that God is one person (the Father), and Jesus is not part of the divine essence.
Key reference: John 14:28 (Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I"), but this verse must be understood in the context of the incarnation and Jesus' role in salvation, not as a denial of His deity.

3. Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God but rather the Son of God, a created being (the Archangel Michael) who was later incarnated as Jesus. They deny the Trinity and assert that Jesus is distinct from God the Father, rejecting His full divinity.
Key reference: Colossians 2:9 teaches that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," which contradicts Jehovah’s Witnesses' view of Jesus.

4. Christadelphians
The Christadelphians hold a belief similar to that of Unitarians, rejecting the full deity of Jesus Christ. They view Jesus as the Son of God, but not as divine or co-equal with the Father. They believe Jesus was fully human and did not pre-exist before His birth.
Key reference: John 1:1-14 affirms the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, in contrast to Christadelphian views.

5. Oneness Pentecostals (or Jesus Only Movement)
While Oneness Pentecostals believe in the divinity of Jesus, they reject the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They believe that God is a single person who manifested Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in different modes, and that Jesus is the full manifestation of God, but not a distinct person within the Trinity.
Key reference: John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") is often cited to defend the unity of God in Jesus.

6. Docetists (Historical Heresy)

Docetists are individuals who hold the view that Jesus only appeared to be human, but was actually fully divine and not truly incarnate. This was an early heresy in the church, which denied both the humanity and personhood of Jesus Christ. It is a form of Gnosticism that believed the physical world was evil, and thus, Jesus could not have truly taken on a physical body.
Key reference: 1 John 4:2-3 refutes this heresy, stating that those who confess Jesus Christ came in the flesh are of God.

7. Muslims
Muslims also deny the deity of Jesus, believing Him to be a prophet and a servant of Allah but not divine. In Islam, Jesus (Isa) is considered a key figure, but His crucifixion and divinity are denied.
Key reference: John 1:1-14 affirms Jesus' divine nature, which contrasts with Islamic teachings.

8. Modern Denialists
There are also various modern groups or individuals who deny the deity and personhood of Jesus, influenced by liberal theology or secular humanism. These individuals may reject biblical authority altogether or re-interpret Jesus as a moral teacher rather than the incarnate God.


There are also various modern groups or individuals who deny the deity and personhood of Jesus, often influenced by liberal theology or secular humanism. These individuals may reject biblical authority outright or reinterpret Jesus as merely a moral teacher, rather than acknowledging Him as the incarnate God.

Is this not evident, and is it not graphically resurfacing in the ongoing denial of the doctrine of the deity of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ? Moreover, does this not continue to challenge the undeniable truth of Scripture and the perfect coherence of the Triune Godhead?

Keep the faith-we are in the last days sister.

Johann.

 

[RedFan]

Not sure what you are not following. Syllogisms in Logic do not need explanation as you claim.

I don't claim that syllogisms in logic need explanation IF THEY ARE VALID. I claim that yours was INvalid due to the non-biological sense of your P1 and P2, and needed explanation as to the intended meaning of P1and P2. (Example: you and I are brothers in Christ. My Dad, rest his soul, was also my brother in Christ. So to say that my Dad cannot both be my father and my brother, while true biologically, is not necessarily true in all contexts.)