The Problem With The Trinity

[justbyfaith]

No, you are not denying the Son. I never said you were.


He wrote;

3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical things.

a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” Since the absence of the article does not mean “lesser god,” it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the “τον θεον” (the God) of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the “τον θεον” of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: “The Word was God!” (Red mine)
​

Two different Gods; polytheism. And he does not address the "quality" that Mounce wrote of.

You didn't quote the whole of his statements. In them He is not proclaiming polytheism, but the concept of plurality in unity (as in one cluster of grapes).

 

[justbyfaith]

I. The use of the article in verse one.
It must be understood that with all language, there are rules of grammar that must be recognized and followed. If not, then communication become impossible. The following was given by a professor of New Testament Greek whose name I do not know. I have rewritten some of the arguments for the purpose of clarity and flow. Though a brilliant scholar, he was not particularly gifted as a writer. I have added some of my own comments and observations but the basic arguments of each point are his.

NT Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase so the absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is when we find examples such as John 1:1 were the article is included in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and should therefore grab our attention. It is the inclusion of the article that is significant. For example, the prepositional phrase “εν αρχη” (in the beginning) does not contain an article in the Greek, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase “προς τον θεον” (with God) however, does include the definite article (τον). Since it was proper NOT to include it, the inclusion here means something. Generally speaking, the inclusion of an article when one is not expected means the writer are being specific, in this case a particular individual who is God. In order to fully understand how that affects this verse, we need to go to the last clause.

To understand the implications of the last clause, one needs to understand Greek syntax. Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative spelling. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative spelling. However, there is a strange class of verbs that do not take a direct object, they take a predicate. There are three verbs that do this in NT Greek. This means you have two nouns that are in the nominative case, where one is the subject, and one is the predicate nominative. So, if both are in the same case, how does one determine which is the subject, and which is the predicate? The rules are as follows.

A. If BOTH nouns have the article attached, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate.
B. If NEITHER noun has the article attached, then the first is the subject and the second is the predicate.
C. If ONE noun has an article and the other does not, then the one with the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate. So, in the phrase “και θεος ην ο λογος” (and the Word was God), we see that λογος has an article (ὁ) and θεος does not. Thus “ὁ λογος” is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. “The Word was God.” θεος as the predicate, describes what the λογος is. Who he is, is the Word. What he is, is God. When translated into English, because λογος is the subject, we have to put it first, so this is properly translated “And the word was God.” There are three things this could mean depending on the construction. It could mean:

1. The word was a lesser god than the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause).
2. The word was the father.
3. The word was fully God, but was NOT the Father.
So, how do we determine which is the meaning of the clause?

B. Understanding the implications of this syntax.

1. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean “the word was A god.” That is, the word was a lesser god than the father. The reason is that since both nouns contain the article, λογος is the subject and must appear first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus its absence means something since even if we gave it the article, it would still be the predicate. Therefore, the absence of the article would mean “A” god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the meaning of θεος.

The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would not change the word's grammatical function would mean there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.
Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “deemphasized”): λογος is less of a god than the Father. Thus, “και ο λογος ην θεος” could only mean “the Word was a god.” But, John did NOT use this construction, so he does not mean that the word was 'a' god.

2. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean “the word was THE God.” That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two being represented and would then stand as a solid case against the idea of a trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God and NOT separate individuals. The construction “και ο λογος ην θεος” then would demand that there is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific: the λογος would then be the exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically locked into occurring after λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It must appear there. Thus, the clause “και ο λογος ην ο θεος” can only mean “Jesus was THE God” (the exact same individual as the Father). However, John did NOT use this construction, so he is not saying that the Word is the same person as the Father.

3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical things.

a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” Since the absence of the article does not mean “lesser god,” it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the “τον θεον” (the God) of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the “τον θεον” of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean “lesser.” By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: “The Word was God!”

Now, we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase “προς τον θεον.” He was being very specific. The Word was with a specific being called “The God” (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely equal with “The God” in divinity, but through the careful placement of the articles, he has shown us that the Word is not the same individual as “The God” of the second clause.

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John's deliberate use of grammar leaves us only ONE possible conclusion: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.

I placed what you already quoted in smaller print to distinguish it from the rest.

 

[gadar perets]

You didn't quote the whole of his statements. In them He is not proclaiming polytheism, but the concept of plurality in unity (as in one cluster of grapes).

He still assumes the "Logos" is a person. That is his foundation for interpreting the verse. Sinking sand.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Logos was God; and God was the Logos.

Is God not a Person?

A sure foundation...Isaiah 28:16.

 

[Nancy]

@gadar perets
"Since you keep "liking" jfb's posts, then you are in agreement " I am in agreement with JFB's view! You seem to be trying to understand the things of the Spirit with your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
"The “three” (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are all called "God" and have ONE (singular) name according to Matthew 28:19 , and that “name” is Yahweh. Thus we have the term Trinity, which simply means tri-unity, or three in ONE."
My belief is also that God the Father never leaves His throne on high but, He can do ANYTHING and He is able to send His own essence to us, Jesus and The Holy Spirit, without ever leaving His throne. They are one. There is nothing you can say that would EVER make me re consider my, now more than ever, firm beliefs in this regard so, you can stop trying to change my core beliefs with your human intellect.
God Bless and keep you.

 

[gadar perets]

The Logos was God; and God was the Logos.

Is God not a Person?

A sure foundation...Isaiah 28:16.

Interesting choice of a verse which shows YHWH is the one that lays the foundation and the foundation stone He lays is His Son Yeshua. Two different beings. One is the builder and the other the building.

 

[gadar perets]

@gadar perets
"Since you keep "liking" jfb's posts, then you are in agreement " I am in agreement with JFB's view! You seem to be trying to understand the things of the Spirit with your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
"The “three” (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are all called "God" and have ONE (singular) name according to Matthew 28:19 , and that “name” is Yahweh. Thus we have the term Trinity, which simply means tri-unity, or three in ONE."
My belief is also that God the Father never leaves His throne on high but, He can do ANYTHING and He is able to send His own essence to us, Jesus and The Holy Spirit, without ever leaving His throne. They are one. There is nothing you can say that would EVER make me re consider my, now more than ever, firm beliefs in this regard so, you can stop trying to change my core beliefs with your human intellect.
God Bless and keep you.

You sound just like your mentor jbf as you accuse me of not being led by the Spirit. You're a good student Nancy. Too bad you are being taught by the wrong teacher.

 

[justbyfaith]

Interesting choice of a verse which shows YHWH is the one that lays the foundation and the foundation stone He lays is His Son Yeshua. Two different beings. One is the builder and the other the building.

You didn't answer the question.

He still assumes the "Logos" is a person. That is his foundation for interpreting the verse. Sinking sand.

The Logos was God; and God was the Logos.

Is God not a Person?

A sure foundation...Isaiah 28:16.

If it is sinking sand that He interprets that the Logos is a Person, you have to show us how it is that God Himself is not a Person.

Jesus is the sure foundation...and He is the Everlasting Father and The Mighty God (Jehovah...Psalms 50:1).

Your only way out of this is to deny that this was said in the original languages. However the original text is not in front of you; and therefore what you think it says could be a lie told to you by the devil himself or one of his minions; human or otherwise.

Even if there is no definite article in the Hebrew concerning Jesus being the Mighty God, this in no way mandates changing the word "God" to "warrior"; and if Jesus is even Mighty God, He is Jehovah according to Psalms 50:1.

Also, you are going on the premise that what we have in English isn't trustworthy. You have fallen for the lie propagated by Mormonism...that the scriptures are correct only insofar as they are correctly translated. Which is very subtle, because it seems like it might be a true statement in itself...except it is suggesting that the scriptures are not correctly translated...which is a lie akin to what the devil said in the beginning (Genesis 3:1).

If I cannot trust my English Bible but have to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew to get the real message of scripture...then the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) has been taken from the common people and belongs only to those educated in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Thus the truth of the gospel doesn't belong to the common people but only to the educated scribes and Pharisees. Yet the scribes and Pharisees, in the Bible, rejected Jesus, and the common people heard Him gladly. Thus you have put the situation in reverse of what it should be. And this also sets up those who are educated in the original languages to be the final authority on what scripture teaches, since they are the only ones who know what they really say...and this creates a cult-like mentality where the common people have to rely on those who are educated to tell them the real message of scripture...and these are the ones who are most inclined to reject the gospel message.

For these reasons I believe that my kjv is God's unadulterated message to me of how to be saved and the essential doctrines I need to be truly saved are faithfully presented there...also because the Lord God is both Omnipotent and Sovereign and Loving, and therefore He would not allow His message to be compromised as we can get a hold of it in our own language...and also, if the devil were to somehow produce a counterfeit translation telling his doctrines and subtly changing the message to fit his liking...the Lord would have certain of His people contend for the translation that contains His unadulterated message, that it is the only true conduit of God's unadulterated message in the language in question....and this is what He did indeed do by instituting the King James Only controversy.

If you have a different understanding, I would simply ask you to consider that the way to life is narrow, and few there be that find it...Matthew 7:13-14...and trusting the kjv, if it seems to be too narrow of a view, may indeed be the path before you that leads to salvation according to this passage.

 

[justbyfaith]

Furthermore, Jesus Christ is the Lord and the Father is the Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3) and there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5). It is written (Jude 1:3-4) that false teachers, in the last days, will reject the only Lord God even our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) and He is the only Lord God. How then is Jesus our Lord if He is not God?

Your only option in rejecting the Deity of Christ at this point is to deny that Jesus is the Lord...which would be an indication that you do not have the Holy Ghost according to 1 Corinthians 12:3.

So, what's it going to be?

 

[gadar perets]

You didn't answer the question.

Of course "God" is a person.

If it is sinking sand that He interprets that the Logos is a Person, you have to show us how it is that God Himself is not a Person.

No, I have to show the translation "and the Word was God" is wrong, which I did. The "logos/word" is a part of God just as my thoughts are part of me.

Jesus is the sure foundation...and He is the Everlasting Father and The Mighty God (Jehovah...Psalms 50:1).

Yes, Yeshua is the sure foundation THAT YHWH laid.

Your only way out of this is to deny that this was said in the original languages. However the original text is not in front of you; and therefore what you think it says could be a lie told to you by the devil himself or one of his minions; human or otherwise.

I do not doubt the Greek copies are in error. The English translations are in error and filled with trinitarian bias.

Even if there is no definite article in the Hebrew concerning Jesus being the Mighty God, this in no way mandates changing the word "God" to "warrior"; and if Jesus is even Mighty God, He is Jehovah according to Psalms 50:1.

Psalm 50:1 says, "el elohim" in Hebrew, not "el gibbor". Even if it said, "el gibbor", that doesn't mean it must be translated the same way for YHWH and Yeshua.

Also, you are going on the premise that what we have in English isn't trustworthy. You have fallen for the lie propagated by Mormonism...that the scriptures are correct only insofar as they are correctly translated. Which is very subtle, because it seems like it might be a true statement in itself...except it is suggesting that the scriptures are not correctly translated...which is a lie akin to what the devil said in the beginning (Genesis 3:1).

The Mormon are not wrong about everything. They do teach some truth and this is one of them as the KJV of Acts 12:4 proves.

If I cannot trust my English Bible but have to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew to get the real message of scripture...then the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) has been taken from the common people and belongs only to those educated in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Thus the truth of the gospel doesn't belong to the common people but only to the educated scribes and Pharisees. Yet the scribes and Pharisees, in the Bible, rejected Jesus, and the common people heard Him gladly. Thus you have put the situation in reverse of what it should be. And this also sets up those who are educated in the original languages to be the final authority on what scripture teaches, since they are the only ones who know what they really say...and this creates a cult-like mentality where the common people have to rely on those who are educated to tell them the real message of scripture...and these are the ones who are most inclined to reject the gospel message.

For these reasons I believe that my kjv is God's unadulterated message to me of how to be saved and the essential doctrines I need to be truly saved are faithfully presented there...also because the Lord God is both Omnipotent and Sovereign and Loving, and therefore He would not allow His message to be compromised as we can get a hold of it in our own language...and also, if the devil were to somehow produce a counterfeit translation telling his doctrines and subtly changing the message to fit his liking...the Lord would have certain of His people contend for the translation that contains His unadulterated message, that it is the only true conduit of God's unadulterated message in the language in question....and this is what He did indeed do by instituting the King James Only controversy.

Our English Bibles are trustworthy for the most part, but when it is shown that a particular translation is wrong, we MUST check the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and other translations to verify it. Yes, we have to rely on those that are educated to know the real message of Scripture. For example, William Tyndale, a very educated man translated much of what is in the KJV. The KJV translators were also educated men. Without such men, we would not have English Bibles. However, such men are not infallible and YHWH did not inspire them to translate infallibly as Acts 12:4 in the KJV proves. You even stray from the KJV when you disagree with it (kai as "even" instead of "and"). So much for your belief that it is "God's unadulterated message."

If you have a different understanding, I would simply ask you to consider that the way to life is narrow, and few there be that find it...Matthew 7:13-14...and trusting the kjv, if it seems to be too narrow of a view, may indeed be the path before you that leads to salvation according to this passage.

We have both gone through that gate (Messiah Yeshua) and are on the narrow path (the way to life - Yeshua). We will both be saved, whether you like it or not, as long as we remain in Messiah. However, we will not receive the same rewards. I will most likely be ruling over you in the Kingdom because you refuse to obey YHWH's commandments.

 

[justbyfaith]

Keeping it simple for now...

You said:

We will both be saved, whether you like it or not, as long as we remain in Messiah.

I certainly would like it for you to be saved...however John 8:24 tells me that if you were to die tonight without acknowledging that Jesus is the Lord as defined by Mark 12:29 (kjv), it would be in your sins...therefore I continue to attempt to convince you of this saving truth of scripture.

Of course "God" is a person.

So what difference does it make whether the Logos is God or God is the Logos? Either way the Logos is God and therefore a Person. Reversing the order of the sentence doesn't change that as far as I can tell. Comment?

 

[gadar perets]

Furthermore, Jesus Christ is the Lord and the Father is the Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 12:3) and there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5). It is written (Jude 1:3-4) that false teachers, in the last days, will reject the only Lord God even our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) and He is the only Lord God. How then is Jesus our Lord if He is not God?

Your only option in rejecting the Deity of Christ at this point is to deny that Jesus is the Lord...which would be an indication that you do not have the Holy Ghost according to 1 Corinthians 12:3.

So, what's it going to be?

You are so narrow minded when it comes to understanding these verses. It is a Scriptural fact that the Father is one Lord and the Son is another Lord. In fact, the Lord YHWH is the one that made Yeshua Lord (Acts 2:36). When Paul wrote there is "one Lord", he meant that out of all the lords that exist, there is only one Lord that YHWH made for believers to trust.

In Acts 17, Paul addresses the Gentiles concerning their Unknown God. He calls that God "the Lord of heaven and earth" in verse 24. Then he said, "Because He (the Lord of heaven and earth) hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him (the Lord Yeshua) from the dead" (verse 31). Two different beings/persons. The greater Lord ordaining the lesser Lord and raising him from the dead.

We also learn by this that Yeshua is NOT the Lord of heaven and earth.

 

[gadar perets]

I certainly would like it for you to be saved...however John 8:24 tells me that if you were to die tonight without acknowledging that Jesus is the Lord as defined by Mark 12:29 (kjv), it would be in your sins...therefore I continue to attempt to convince you of this saving truth of scripture.

What can I say other than you have not rightly divided the word of John 8:24? You stick to your narrow minded interpretation and refuse the light of truth.

So what difference does it make whether the Logos is God or God is the Logos? Either way the Logos is God and therefore a Person. Reversing the order of the sentence doesn't change that as far as I can tell. Comment?

I never said the Logos is God or that God is the Logos. The logos is part of God. His thoughts, plans, spoken words. When Scripture says, "the word of YHWH came to ...", it means YHWH's thoughts were turned into words that were imparted to that prophet's mind or ears. It does not mean a person named the "Logos" came to the prophet to speak to him.

 

[justbyfaith]

You are so narrow minded when it comes to understanding these verses. It is a Scriptural fact that the Father is one Lord and the Son is another Lord. In fact, the Lord YHWH is the one that made Yeshua Lord (Acts 2:36). When Paul wrote there is "one Lord", he meant that out of all the lords that exist, there is only one Lord that YHWH made for believers to trust.

I do not mind that you think that I am narrow-minded. Jesus said that the way to life is narrow (Matthew 7:13-14). Now Ephesians 4:5 says nothing about another Lord that God made for believers to trust. It says that there is one Lord period. The only Lord God (Jude 1:4). Can you say, "Jesus is the Lord" in light of these scriptures? (see also 1 Corinthians 12:3). I don't think you can; and therefore you are lacking a key element when it comes to being able to interpret scripture correctly--namely, the Holy Ghost (see 1 Corinthians 2:13-14).

In Acts 17, Paul addresses the Gentiles concerning their Unknown God. He calls that God "the Lord of heaven and earth" in verse 24. Then he said, "Because He (the Lord of heaven and earth) hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him (the Lord Yeshua) from the dead" (verse 31). Two different beings/persons. The greater Lord ordaining the lesser Lord and raising him from the dead.

Yes indeed, the Father is the Lord of heaven and earth; and He descended to become that Man. In light of what you have written, consider 1 Peter 1:17!

 

[justbyfaith]

What can I say other than you have not rightly divided the word of John 8:24? You stick to your narrow minded interpretation and refuse the light of truth.

The way to life is narrow (Matthew 7:13-14, John 14:6) and He is the light of the world (John 1:9, John 8:12)

I never said the Logos is God or that God is the Logos. The logos is part of God. His thoughts, plans, spoken words. When Scripture says, "the word of YHWH came to ...", it means YHWH's thoughts were turned into words that were imparted to that prophet's mind or ears. It does not mean a person named the "Logos" came to the prophet to speak to him.

The Bible says that the Word (the Logos) was God, in John 1:1. If God was the Logos, it still does not contradict the fact that God, being the Logos, is a Person!

 

[Nancy]

You sound just like your mentor jbf as you accuse me of not being led by the Spirit. You're a good student Nancy. Too bad you are being taught by the wrong teacher.

Mentor or not, he and I agree on what I have learned over the many years. We all need to be each others mentors by having a soft heart and a teachable spirit. I can learn from even an unbeliever!

 

[Episkopos]

He still assumes the "Logos" is a person. That is his foundation for interpreting the verse. Sinking sand.

The Logos (YHVH) became flesh and dwelt among us....as was prophesied. "I (YHVH) will dwell in your midst."

All praise to God.

 

[gadar perets]

Mentor or not, he and I agree on what I have learned over the many years. We all need to be each others mentors by having a soft heart and a teachable spirit. I can learn from even an unbeliever!

You have been indoctrinated into the trinity belief by your mentors. One can have a teachable spirit and be taught error and willingly accept it which is what you have done.

 

[gadar perets]

The Logos (YHVH) became flesh and dwelt among us....as was prophesied. "I (YHVH) will dwell in your midst."

All praise to God.

The logos (the Father's thoughts, plan, spoken words) became flesh (Yeshua). Yeshua dwelt among us and so did YHWH IN Messiah.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God (YHWH) was IN Messiah, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
​

God was NOT Messiah, but was IN Messiah. That is why God is the head of Messiah and why Yeshua's God is YHWH. YHWH and Yeshua will both dwell in our midst in the future (Revelation 21:22).

 

[Episkopos]

The logos (the Father's thoughts, plan, spoken words) became flesh (Yeshua). Yeshua dwelt among us and so did YHWH IN Messiah.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God (YHWH) was IN Messiah, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
​

God was NOT Messiah, but was IN Messiah. That is why God is the head of Messiah and why Yeshua's God is YHWH. YHWH and Yeshua will both dwell in our midst in the future (Revelation 21:22).

The Logos (YHVH) WAS God.

God hides a word...(davar) as it is written in Prov.25:2 Jesus is that davar (word) And that word is YHVH.

It is hidden in plain sight so that people can't see it.