Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[RLT63]

Right! Not God was made flesh! And why do you gore my 2nd question?

I answered both, and the Word was God, remember?

 

[Wrangler]

I answered both, and the Word was God, remember?

No, you didn’t answer the 2nd question. The word was God but not Jesus.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus’ “divinity” is not “deity”…..being “divine” means he is from God, not that he is God.

Of course, Trinitarians want to confuse divinity, OF, with deity, IS.

 

[RLT63]

No, you didn’t answer the 2nd question. The word was God but not Jesus.

@Wrangler said “God does not become as he is unchanging and has no flesh.”
@Wrangler said “Right! Not God was made flesh! ”
@Wrangler said “The Word was God but not Jesus”
Jhn 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[APAK]

How far will you go?

The Greek Word "Houtos" (οὗτος)
Houtos is a demonstrative pronoun that can mean "this" or "he," depending on the context. Its antecedent determines how it should be understood.

In John 1:1-2, the antecedent of houtos is ho logos (ὁ λόγος), which is grammatically masculine in Greek. Therefore, houtos takes a masculine form, and its most natural translation is "he" when referring to a person.

2. Contextual Evidence in John 1
John 1:1-2 introduces ho logos as both distinct from God ("the Word was with God") and as God ("the Word was God").

The personhood of logos is implied by the use of the preposition pros (πρὸς) in "with God" (pros ton Theon), which suggests relationality, something a non-personal concept like "word" would not exhibit.

John 1:3 states, "Through him (di' autou, a personal pronoun), all things were made." The use of autou (him) confirms that logos is understood as a person, not a mere abstract concept.

John 1:4 further identifies the logos as the source of life, a role that implies personal agency.

3. Consistency with Johannine Theology

Throughout the Gospel of John, logos is clearly identified with Jesus Christ, a person. For instance:

John 1:14: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (ho logos sarx egeneto), explicitly identifying the logos as Jesus.

John 1:18: "No one has seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known."
Translating houtos as "this" rather than "he" in John 1:2 disrupts the coherence of the prologue, which develops logos as a personal, divine agent who becomes incarnate.

4. Grammatical and Semantic Challenges

If houtos were translated as "this" (referring to "God's word" as a concept), the use of masculine pronouns (di' autou in John 1:3) would become incongruous. Concepts do not take personal pronouns in Greek.

Your argument ignores the broader linguistic pattern in which houtos often functions to emphasize a specific subject (here, logos as a person).

5. Early Church Understanding

Early Christians, including those who spoke Greek natively, universally interpreted logos as a reference to the preexistent Christ. This understanding shaped the doctrine of the Trinity.

The translation "he" reflects this historical and theological understanding, not a later theological imposition.

Conclusion
The claim that houtos in John 1:2-4 means "this" rather than "he" contradicts the grammatical structure, immediate context, and broader Johannine theology. The logos is clearly presented as a divine person who existed eternally with God and became incarnate in Jesus Christ.

J.

Another wasteful post with errors beginning in the first statement and they multiply, practically line after line.

Look, you like 'breaking down' (in more ways that one) verses and using the superfluous use of Greek dictionaries and grammar references that say nothing about the real cause of why the Greek transliterated word 'logos' is a 'he', except if it is artificially and intentionally personified. Then once used, over and over again in this personalized fashion, you, and many , many, then began to believe it actually meant the logos is Yahshua who suddenly is divine and even a deity. That is your level of understanding and ignorance on this matter.

Before the KJV, translations and interpretations of John 1 varied. Although the use of “it” or “this” was COMMON. And why might you ask. Because when one referred to the 'logos' before the KJV. it matched the perfect and grammatical structure and context of the original Greek text.

The Greek word 'logos' (Λόγος) is a neuter noun FOR the ENGLISH language and usage - I wonder if you caught that point, which typically would be translated using a neuter pronoun such as “it” or “this” in English.

However, once the Trinitarians and their translators got a hold of this area of scripture, they REWROTE it to conform to their idol god. It is a forgery and a lie.

So, once the theological Trinitarian significance of the logos as a personification of Jesus Christ took hold, it led many translators to THEN use “he” or “him” to reflect the false Trinity model of divinity and personhood of the 'logos.'

They destroyed and concealed the true word and its meaning.

For example, in the Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation completed in 1610, the first verse of John 1 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This translation uses “the Word” (Logos) as a direct reference to Jesus Christ, without the use of “it” or “this.”

Again, to pound it into the many vacuum-filled heads of most, the decision to use “it” or “this” before the KJV was often a matter of adhering strictly to the grammatical gender of the Greek text. And why would you not do this?!

Thus, again, the use of 'it' or 'this' before the KJV was a reflection of both grammatical considerations and theological interpretation, with some translations opting for a more literal rendering and others emphasizing the personhood of the Logos - that lead to CORRUPTION.

And J., you must love it that they decided to corrupt the innocent word of the logos for God's inner expression and purpose and bastardized it for their false idol of worship...,right J.!?

 

[St. SteVen]

Its the majority who are found on the road to destruction….only the “few” who have not strayed from the right path are on the road to,life, cramped and narrow as it is….. (Matt 7:13-14; 21-23)

Good post. Terrible conclusion. (assuming you are talking about the afterlife)
Honestly. What sort of tyrannical god would concoct such a horrible plan for humankind?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

The word was God but not Jesus.

The Word (God) became flesh. (Jesus)
Therefore God became flesh and dwelt among us. Immanuel, God with us.

[

 

[amigo de christo]

@Wrangler said “God does not become as he is unchanging and has no flesh.”
@Wrangler said “Right! Not God was made flesh! ”
@Wrangler said “The Word was God but not Jesus”
Jhn 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Sounds like wrangler is confused .

 

[amigo de christo]

@Wrangler said “God does not become as he is unchanging and has no flesh.”
@Wrangler said “Right! Not God was made flesh! ”
@Wrangler said “The Word was God but not Jesus”
Jhn 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So THE WORD BECAME FLESH says wrangler but JESUS IS NOT the WORD .
ANYONE WANNA TELL ME how such confusion can come upon a man .
The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us
BUT wrangler says HEY JESUS IS NOT THE WORD .
Does even a lick of that make any sense to you . Exactly . Thanks for exposing it my friend .

 

[face2face]

Okay this is going nowhere and so far it's just conjecture from you.

By your logic we are like God, are we going to become Gods?

22 ¶ And the LORD God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil,

Notice how I've added evidence with each reply? I did this with Johann also and in the end he embarrassed himself.

Maybe you believe the Angels were made in the Image of another God?

Who know's

F2F

 

[face2face]

You don’t want to see.

It's the same resistant attitude we encounter with every topic. You can show them the Mona Lisa, but all they want to do is paint over it!

 

[Wrangler]

The Word (God)

Figurative. In V2, this (word) was with God in the beginning. The word was made flesh, not God was made flesh.

If your take is correct, why is it not in John’s literal purpose statement, 20:31?

 

[RLT63]

Notice how I've added evidence with each reply? I did this with Johann also and in the end he embarrassed himself.

Maybe you believe the Angels were made in the Image of another God?

who know

F2F

Maybe they are made in the image of God, but you can’t show me where it says that in the Bible, so it’s just speculation.

 

[RLT63]

Figurative. In V2, this (word) was with God in the beginning. The word was made flesh, not God was made flesh.

If your take is correct, why is it not in John’s literal purpose statement, 20:31?

But you said the word was God

 

[face2face]

Maybe they are made in the image of God, but you can’t show me where it says that in the Bible, so it’s just speculation.

That’s a real facepalm moment if I’ve ever seen one!
Can you explain why God would create His children in the image of someone other than Himself?
Man, surely you can see how frustrating this conversation is becoming!
You have been shown 5 times but you refuse to accept - the issue in your brain and not with the evidence
F2F

 

[Wrangler]

But you said the word was God

Do you understand figurative language? And while we’re at it, answer my 2nd question?

If your take is correct, why is it not in John’s literal purpose statement, 20:31?

We all know you claim to have answered it already. It’s just not true.

 

[RLT63]

That’s a real facepalm moment if I’ve ever seen one!
Can you explain why God would create His children in the image of someone other than Himself?
Man, surely you can see how frustrating this conversation is becoming!
You have been shown 5 times but you refuse to accept - the issue in your brain and not with the evidence
F2F

You’ve shown no evidence, only speculation

 

[face2face]

@RLT63

Romans 8:14, where those who are led by the Spirit are called sons of God

Are they led by the Spirit?

Job 38:4-7 (ESV): "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

Are they not Sons of God?

I think we are up to 7x evidence

F2F

 

[RLT63]

Do you understand figurative language? And while we’re at it, answer my 2nd question?



We all know you claim to have answered it already. It’s just not true.

Because he already declared it in the previous 3 verses
Jhn 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jhn 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[face2face]

Because he already declared it in the previous 3 verses
Jhn 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jhn 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Yes, Thomas was indeed in awe of what God had done through Jesus as the direct manifestation of Yahweh Himself!
They understood their OT you see.
F2F