Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Wrangler]

Let's cut to the chase -

Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

--------

Both are true since Scripture can't be broken.

Here's the chase. Nothing in John's Gospel supports the trinity or the man-is-god thesis, aka God did not become incarnate. Nothing. In fact, John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible.

Trinitarians are reading into his prologue what contradicts his purpose statement of 20:31. How can something BE a thing and WITH that thing, besides what trinitarianism claims?

 

[ProDeo]

Here's the chase. Nothing in John's Gospel supports the trinity or the man-is-god thesis, aka God did not become incarnate. Nothing. In fact, John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the Bible.

Trinitarians are reading into his prologue what contradicts his purpose statement of 20:31. How can something BE a thing and WITH that thing, besides what trinitarianism claims?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

------------

It's right there for your nose - Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

[Wrangler]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

------------

It's right there for your nose - Jesus is God in the flesh.

John 1:1 does not say Jesus. John 1:14 does not say God became incarnate. His purpose statement in 20:31 does not state what you claim. See Deut 18:15-18.

It’s right there for your nose. Jesus is NOT God.

 

[ProDeo]

John 1:1 does not say Jesus.

Correct so far.

John 1:14 does not say God became incarnate.

Wrong.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

The Word was God (v1)
The Word (God) became flesh (Bethlehem) (v14)

His purpose statement in 20:31

Scroll back 3 verses -

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Blasphemy?

Note, rhetoric question.

 

[Wrangler]

John 1:14 does not say God became incarnate.

Wrong.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

The Word was God (v1)
The Word (God) became flesh (Bethlehem) (v14)

By adding words in parenthesis you are changing God's word in in attempt to claim it is saying God became incarnate when it said nothing of the kind. The word became flesh, not God.

You just cannot ignore Deut 18:15-18, affirmed in John 1:45 because it goes against your dogma.

 

[Wrangler]

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Blasphemy?

Note, rhetoric question.

Exclamatory statements are not narrative. I am not literally claiming the toast I dropped, butter side down is actually feces!

If your take on 20:28 were correct, it would be included in v31. How do you explain that?

 

[ProDeo]

If your take on 20:28 were correct, it would be included in v31. How do you explain that?

Both are true, what else?

 

[ProDeo]

By adding words in parenthesis you are changing God's word in in attempt to claim it is saying God became incarnate when it said nothing of the kind. The word became flesh, not God.

The Word was God (v1) and the Word became flesh (v14), nothing to do with parenthesis, everything to do with reading in context.

You just cannot ignore Deut 18:15-18, affirmed in John 1:45 because it goes against your dogma.

Nope, both are true, Scripture does not contradict itself.

 

[Wrangler]

Both are true, what else?

LOL No one is saying Scripture is not true. It is your reading trinitarianism into unitarian text that is false. I'll ask you for the 3rd time, IF your eisegesis is true, why is it not included in John's purpose statement of 20:31?

Let me be explicit. Given that John said he wrote his entire gospel for X, you cannot then use his Gospel to support Y, as you are attempting to do.

 

[Wrangler]

The Word was God (v1) and the Word became flesh (v14), nothing to do with parenthesis, everything to do with reading in context.

The context does not support your claim that God became flesh. Again, you just cannot ignore Deut 18:15-18, affirmed in John 1:45 because it goes against your dogma. Why is that you keep ignoring this?

And you failed to answer the question of how something can BE a thing and WITH that thing, other than trinity explanation. Why is that?

 

[face2face]

Let's cut to the chase -

Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,

--------

Both are true since Scripture can't be broken.

Blessings Face.

Correct both speak to the One Almighty God Who Created His firstborn Son in the Nation of Israel (Exo 4:22) and then again with the Lord Jesus Christ (Word made Flesh!) John 1:14

F2F

 

[face2face]

Principles for Literal Reading

Understand the Genre of the Text

Historical books (e.g., Genesis, Exodus, Kings) are generally read as straightforward records of events.
Poetry (e.g., Psalms, Song of Solomon) often employs metaphors and hyperboles, requiring careful discernment.
Prophetic and apocalyptic books (e.g., Isaiah, Revelation) frequently use symbolic imagery, but sometimes contain literal elements.

Correct

Also J. you replied to me this time so no whining about being tagged!

You also have at least 7 messages to reply on the HS.

Look for Explicit Indicators of Figurative Language

Words like "as" or "like" often signal similes (e.g., Psalm 1:3: "He is like a tree planted by streams of water").
The presence of visions, parables, or clear symbolic contexts (e.g., Ezekiel’s dry bones in Ezekiel 37) indicates metaphorical intent.

Correct

Examine the Immediate Context

A passage's surrounding verses and chapters often clarify whether the language is literal or figurative.

Example: Jesus' statement, “I am the door” (John 10:9), is metaphorical, clarified by the context that He provides access to salvation, not a physical doorway.

Not sure why you are sharing this Johann all very straight forward!

Consider the Cultural and Historical Setting

Many expressions were rooted in ancient cultural idioms (e.g., “a land flowing with milk and honey” in Exodus 3:8 symbolizes abundance, not literal rivers of milk and honey).
Apply the Rule of Consistency

I wish you would do this with the Shema!

Interpret Scripture with Scripture, comparing unclear passages with clearer ones.

Why don't you practice these study skills on the subject of the Trinity? This really is hypocrisy posting this!

Example: The "seven heads" of the beast in Revelation 17:9 are explained as "seven mountains" (symbolic, with further clarification provided).

Correct

By consistently applying these principles, one can discern when to read Scripture literally and when to recognize metaphorical or symbolic elements.

Not by pontificating and philosophizing as going on here.

J.

I agree with everything you've posted, but I'm curious why you don't personally apply these skills. The commentaries you share through copy and paste seem to lack these qualities also.

Perhaps you're not seeing this as clearly as I do?

F2F

 

[face2face]

No. I’m saying there are no Scriptures that plainly state Jesus existed eternally or even existed beyond our Creators plan for him before his 1st century birth.

Brakelite claimed he could provide evidence for the Master's preexistence, but I have yet to see it. I've explained Christ's nature in the clearest terms, emphasizing that it's impossible for Christ to be divine while being clothed in human nature.

Here's what I believe: Most Christians have accepted certain truths (or untruths) without testing them or critically examining their beliefs, which is why so many are unable to provide evidence to support their own convictions.

 

[Wrangler]

Correct both speak to the One Almighty God Who Created His firstborn Son in the Nation of Israel (Exo 4:22) and then again with the Lord Jesus Christ (Word made Flesh!) John 1:14

@ProDeo is willfully ignorant in connecting the dots.

John's prologue is NOT re-writing Genesis 1 account but merely poetically stating the authority of God's words put in a man among the people of Israel prophecied in Deut 18:15-18 has come true, affirmed in John 1:45. Jesus said repeatedly that he has no authority, only says what God tells him to say, which would not be the case IF Jesus were God. John 12:49.

It is God's authoritative words coming out of his chosen servant's mouth. Acts 3:13.

If the trinitarian take were true, Jesus would have expressed this many time, such as when he taught us to pray and saying only the father is the true God. John 17:1-3. Moreover, IF his take were true, it would be in John's purpose statement of 20:31.

Finally, he refused to speculate on how a thing can BE something and be WITH something, other than the trinitarian take. As I said, willfully ignorant, his petulant and flippant, "they're both true" notwithstanding.

 

[face2face]

LOL No one is saying Scripture is not true. It is your reading trinitarianism into unitarian text that is false. I'll ask you for the 3rd time, IF your eisegesis is true, why is it not included in John's purpose statement of 20:31?

Let me be explicit. Given that John said he wrote his entire gospel for X, you cannot then use his Gospel to support Y, as you are attempting to do.

Nice point on John 20:31!

 

[face2face]

Scroll back 3 verses -

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Blasphemy?

Note, rhetoric question.

Scroll back another 8 verses -

Jesus told Mary, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God" (v. 17). Since Jesus was to ascend to His God, it’s clear that He was not Himself "Very God."

I think you are missing some cultural context to Thomas' words but I'll let you do the research to find what that is!

F2F

 

[face2face]

Yes, and this is what folks should be saying about Jesus' current status and nature is that it has drastically changed since his original existence or birth- he became reborn!

That he changed since he was created for the first time, pre-existing as a human being with one nature and one human spirit over 2000 years ago. And then he became reborn by his Father, at his resurrection, and thus re-existed or existed anew as another new nature with one spirit of immortality, of an immortal human nature. And we will be of the same one spirit and nature as Jesus, a new generation of reborn immortal human beings.

When in Psalms 2:7...
(Psa 2:7) I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, You are My son. Today I have become your father.

That God begotten a son after his baptism, he meant his new birth at his eventual resurrection symbolized when Jesus came out of the waters and was anointed. A new reborn son of immortality would be created.

He could now be his Father in full, in spirit, in his new immortality,

Understanding the New Creation in Christ Jesus is paramount to having the Original Gospel in your possession!

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. Col 1:18

After he had provided purification for sins (death & resurrection), he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Heb 1:3

and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord Romans 1:4

This is the realisation of the New Man who "put on" Divine Nature ascended the Heavens and was seated at the right hand of the Father on High.

When all God's Children are changed it will be known that Jesus really was the first-born from among the dead!

F2F

 

[ProDeo]

@ProDeo is willfully ignorant in connecting the dots.

willfully ignorant means you say I am a liar. Typical JW brotherly love?

 

[face2face]

Bible Truth

If Christs essence was 100% mortality and it was changed to 100% immortal nature then the conundrum of the Trinity is plain for all to see.

The creedal Trinity

States “one essence, but three essences”, “numerically one, but also numerically three”, “one person, but not one person.”

If you can start making statements like that, well… you can claim anything!

I'm certain Trinitarians can see the issue

 

[face2face]

willfully ignorant means you say I am a liar. Typical JW brotherly love?

It's self-deception Pro! A lot of it is going on in this thread...

Can also present as avoidance