Bruce-Leiter
Well-Known Member
Read the whole Gospel of John; John believes in the Trinity: three Persons in ONE God. Therefore, I do too.
To the only God our Savior
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The primitive Christians were Jewish monotheists. The gospel of John is written by a Jewish monotheist. The only God in Jewish monotheism is the Messiah’s God.
Christianity gradually departed from the faith of the primitive Christians. That’s the history that I’ve been discussing.
Bruce-Leiter
Well-Known Member
So, are you saying that early Christians changed the Gospel of John to say that God is three Persons in ONE God? If so, what basis do you have to say such a thing? And why don't you believe in the Trinity the way I describe the belief as found in the present Gospel of John?
Thank you. I won a bet.
The only God John believes in is the Messiah’s God: one person, the Father.
There were no trinitarians in biblical history. The history of doctrine of the Trinity is post-biblical.
“John the trinitarian” isn’t an historical figure; “John the Jewish monotheist” is.
No. The primitive Christians didn’t know anything about the doctrine of the Trinity. They didn’t change John’s Gospel in any way.
Fortman does a good job of explaining how we came to have the doctrine of the Trinity. No one changed the Gospel of John (or any other of the New Testament or Old Testament writings).
Bruce-Leiter
Well-Known Member
If you truly believe that the "only God John believes in is the Messiah's God: one person, the Father, how do you interpret the following verses?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Joh 4:13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again,
Joh 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Joh 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.
Joh 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
Joh 7:39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Joh 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
There are more "I am" claims of Jesus, but those statements refer directly to the God of the burning bush, where God gives his name to Moses, "
Exo 3:13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
Exo 3:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Exo 3:15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.
Thus, Jesus claims to be God with the Father with his "I am" claims.
Finally, Jesus uses the phrase "son of Man" to refer to himself in all the gospels; he uses those words from Daniel 7:13-14--
Dan 7:13 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Dan 7:14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Also, Jesus claims to be the good shepherd, that is, David's Shepherd in Psalm 23:
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Psa 23:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
If you can read through all these quotes without seeing that Jesus is God with the same status as the Father but with a different role, I suggest that you are blind to the truth as presented in the Bible. In chapters 14, 15, and 16 of John, he quotes Jesus as revealing the third Person, the Holy Spirit, of the Trinity.
I interpret all scripture with the eyes and mind of Jewish monotheism.
The entire Bible is written by Jewish monotheists. Interpreting with the eyes and mind of a Jewish monotheist is consistent and reasonable, I would say.
You interpret the same scripture but with the eyes and mind of a trinitarian. The results of those respective approaches is a different understanding of the writings.
Bruce-Leiter
Well-Known Member
Why? John's gospel is monotheism, but it reveals more about that one God; he is revealed as three Persons. The Trinity is a mystery showing that he is beyond human thought. Isaiah 55:8 shows that we cannot figure out mysteries about God like the Trinity:
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
I’m a Jewish monotheist. John is a Jewish monotheist. The history of the doctrine of the Trinity is easy to trace.
Yes. Jewish monotheism. It’s such an elementary historical point that it’s a concession by trinitarian scholars. I quoted J.A.T. Robinson as an example.
That’s a trinitarian perspective on a Jewish monotheist’s writing.
Isaiah is a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian.
There is no “Isaiah the trinitarian” in history; there is a “Isaiah the Jewish monotheist” in history.
You’re once again taking something written by a Jewish monotheist and making use and application of it through your trinitarian eyes and mind.
There is no question that the Church began as a sect of, and within, Judaism. Everyone knows, or should, that Judaism (Jewish monotheism) is unitarian. (I’ll quote some trinitarian scholars to establish the point, if that’s really necessary.)
There is also no question that in the second century the Church moved away from Jewish monotheism, and that in the third century we still haven’t arrived at trinitarianism.
There is no question that the Church came close to trinitarianism at Nicaea in 325. There is no question that as late as 380 the Church was still unsettled on who or what the Holy Spirit is (I’ve quoted Gregory of Nazianzus, from Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, to demonstrate and document the point.)
Finally, there is no question that in 381, at the Council of Constantinople, the doctrine of the Trinity was completed.
This is nothing but Church history.
The only question is the one asked by the trinitarian scholar Harold O.J. Brown.
I quote trinitarian scholars (I rarely quote non-trinitarian scholars) and Church history not to prove or disprove the doctrine of the Trinity. The history is there and as plain as the nose on our faces. Everyone has to answer Dr. Brown’s question for themselves.
From my X / Twitter “For you” feed this morning:
Samuel G. Parkison discussing “suggestions for evangelical pastors and churches wanting to enhance their weekly worship with theology and practice from the Great Tradition (all evangelicals can, in principle, include these):
2. Weekly corporate recitation of the Nicene Creed.
This gets Trinitarian grammar and the biblical story into the ‘bloodstream’ of a local church, and situates Trinitarian theology in its native habitat: doxology.”
x.com
That’s a good suggestion. (I was raised Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists don’t recite creeds; they are are trinitarian but non-creedal).
It’s true that recitation of the Nicene Creed (he’s referring to the revised Nicene Creed, which includes the additions from the Council of Constantinople - sometimes called the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”) gets “Trinitarian grammar into the ‘bloodstream’”.
Why doesn’t reading the Bible get “Trinitarian grammar” into the bloodstream? That’s easy. The grammar comes from the Creed, not from the Bible.
But what about the biblical story? The assertion is that “Trinitarian grammar” and (“plus”) the biblical story get into the “bloodstream” by recitation of the Nicene Creed. The biblical story doesn’t contain the grammar but the grammar is applied to the biblical story. This is ingraining interpretation / understanding of the writings of Jewish monotheists with trinitarian eyes and mind.
We’re also told, rightly, that it “situates Trinitarian theology in its native habitat: doxology.” More specifically, 4th century Christian doxology.
Does any of this prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is true or false? No, but it does prove that the Church developed a trinitarian theology and doxology in post-biblical times. No non-trinitarian ever has, nor ever will, legitimately be able to deny that the Church did this. It doesn’t come from Constantine (as some non-trinitarians assert); it comes from the Church. To deny that would be to deny Church history. There’s nothing to be gained by doing that but there is something to lose by doing it.
Samuel G. Parkison discussing “suggestions for evangelical pastors and churches wanting to enhance their weekly worship with theology and practice from the Great Tradition (all evangelicals can, in principle, include these):
2. Weekly corporate recitation of the Nicene Creed.
This gets Trinitarian grammar and the biblical story into the ‘bloodstream’ of a local church, and situates Trinitarian theology in its native habitat: doxology.”
x.com
x.com
That’s a good suggestion. (I was raised Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists don’t recite creeds; they are are trinitarian but non-creedal).
It’s true that recitation of the Nicene Creed (he’s referring to the revised Nicene Creed, which includes the additions from the Council of Constantinople - sometimes called the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”) gets “Trinitarian grammar into the ‘bloodstream’”.
Why doesn’t reading the Bible get “Trinitarian grammar” into the bloodstream? That’s easy. The grammar comes from the Creed, not from the Bible.
But what about the biblical story? The assertion is that “Trinitarian grammar” and (“plus”) the biblical story get into the “bloodstream” by recitation of the Nicene Creed. The biblical story doesn’t contain the grammar but the grammar is applied to the biblical story. This is ingraining interpretation / understanding of the writings of Jewish monotheists with trinitarian eyes and mind.
We’re also told, rightly, that it “situates Trinitarian theology in its native habitat: doxology.” More specifically, 4th century Christian doxology.
Does any of this prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is true or false? No, but it does prove that the Church developed a trinitarian theology and doxology in post-biblical times. No non-trinitarian ever has, nor ever will, legitimately be able to deny that the Church did this. It doesn’t come from Constantine (as some non-trinitarians assert); it comes from the Church. To deny that would be to deny Church history. There’s nothing to be gained by doing that but there is something to lose by doing it.
Is God the only Savior?
I imagine by now you may be arguing with me and saying something like this: Well, if Jesus is not God in human flesh what you say to the Scriptures that say only God can save? After all, God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides me" (Isaiah 40 3:11). If Jesus is not God and there are two saviors! And this is something the Bible here clearly excludes.
We have already seen a strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not one single Old Testament prophecy that supports it. Not one verse foretells that God himself was going to become a man in order to save us. The opposite is the case. The prophets predicted a human being who would under God's anointing Spirit rescue us.
Wherein lies the solution? Ah, let's now read this through our Hebrew eyes and see what a difference it makes. Remember that dictum the Jews had about the law of agency where "the agent is as the principal himself"? It applies right here.
Let's go back to Exodus 23. You remember that we used this chapter earlier to illustrate the Hebrew law of agency. We saw that the angel of the Lord acted in God's stead. What the angel did in said was really what God himself did and said, for "My name is in him" (v. 21). In verse 23 Jehovah explained, "For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivities and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them." The angel was the instrument through whom God destroyed the enemies.
Now let's proceed on in the chapter. God says to the Israelites, "I will send my terror ahead of you… I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivities, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you" (v. 27-28).
To our understanding this sounds as if the LORD himself is going to do the work. But when we come to verse 31: "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you." So God expects the Israelites to drive their enemies out. Is there a contradiction here? Will God Himself drive out their enemies or will the Israelites do it? We note the principle again and again. Got says He will act when in fact He is going to empower his angels and his people to do the work.
This kind of talk has a thorough Hebrew feel about it. Actions that are directly ascribed to God are in fact carried out by his commissioned agents. Take another instance: "in the LORD… he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" (2 Kings 14:27).
Once again we observe the clear distinction between God who is the ultimate Author of deliverance and his appointed agent who in this case was King Jeroboam. Or take this verse: "therefore you did deliver them into the hands of the oppressors who oppressed them. But when they cry to You in the time of their distress, You did hear from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You did give them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their it oppressors" (Nehemiah 9:27).
Graeser, the author of One God and One Lord, p.363. Writes: God, Christ and others are referred to as "saviors," but that clearly does not make them identical. The term "Savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the terms seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scriptures can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.
Is often been argued that the very name Jesus, which means "Yahweh saves," prove Jesus is Jehovah because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). But the logic is not consistently applied because the O.T. name Joshua means "Yahweh saves." I have never yet heard someone who believes in the deity of Christ argue that Joshua was God in the flesh. We know that the O.T. Joshua was God appointed man to deliver Israel. As Joshua and Israel went forth in obedience to his word God save them. Just so, in the matter of our salvation, God sent forth his son into battle. Through Jesus God has saved us. This is why both God and Jesus are called Savior. But the Bible never loses sight of the fact that God the Father is the ultimate Author of our salvation through (dia) his son.
This same line of reasoning applies to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2. This is one of the most commonly appealed to Scriptures that allegedly proves that Jesus must be God, because "only God can forgive sins" (v.7). When Jesus pronounced the man forgiven/healed, the Pharisees say that Jesus is "blaspheming" because he is claiming to be God. But a little careful attention to detail will show that Jesus is not claiming deity. He is rather claiming "authority." He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" (v.10). The parallel account in Matthew's report is that once the people saw Jesus healed a paralytic, "they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men" ( Matt 9:8). We note that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son of Man," that is, the human Messiah, with a God given right to pronounce forgiveness. Not too much later Jesus invested other men-his apostles-with the same authority to forgive sins: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; he to retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). If only God can forgive sins, then God and Jesus and the apostles are all God! Besides, there is no teaching anywhere in the Bible that says only God can forgive. Even Christians are commanded to forgive each other sin (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). The fact that the Pharisees say that only God can forgive sins does not make this an established Biblical doctrine. The Pharisees often had wrong doctrine and were often corrected by our Lord Jesus. This was one such occasion.
Those who believe that Jesus can only be our Savior if he is God sometimes appeal to the prophecy from Jeremiah 23: (In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is his name by which he will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness’" (Jer. 23:6).
Does this not say that the coming Savior will be "The LORD our righteousness," that is, God himself? This is easily answered when we note that a few chapters later we have this prophecy in Jeremiah 33: "in those days Judah shall be saved in Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the LORD is our righteousness’ (v.16).
Here the city of Jerusalem is given the very same title as the coming redeemer earlier. I have never yet heard anyone argue that the city of Jerusalem must also be God himself because it bears the same title as Jehovah. Hebrew understanding is needed to avoid the confusion.
This is why it is fallacious to reason that because Jesus is called the "King of Kings and the Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16) he must necessarily be Almighty God Himself. The fact that Artaxerxes is called "king of kings" and that God himself calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" does not put these men in the same league as Messiah Jesus, nor mean they have the same nature as him. The designation "king of kings" is obviously a very Hebrew way of speaking that has nothing to do with the equivalency of nature. The Hebrews could also speak of a "servant of servants," which simply means to the lowest of the low (Gen 9:25). In the book of Daniel God addresses Nebuchadnezzar: "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory" (Dan. 2:37).
In the same Hebrew fashion, when Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as "the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords" the message conveyed is that God has also given him the Kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory of the Age to Come. Equality of being with the God who gives the Kingdom does not come into the equation, for either Nebuchadnezzar or Jesus. If, as already noted, to share the same nomenclature as God does not prove literal identity with God himself, the same holds true for the sharing of the same titles. Whilst Jesus may share the title "king of kings and Lord of Lords" with God his Father, there is one title reserved uniquely for the Father God. No other individual, including the Lord Jesus, is ever called by the title "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17). This title, as well as "the Lord God" (Rev. 1:8), is always reserved for the one true God, who is the Father.
Sorry... was giving support... adding to what others posted.. My bad
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
“to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord,
Psalm 16:2
Preserve me, O God,
for in You I take refuge.
I said to the LORD, “You are my Lord;
apart from You I have no good thing.
Behold, God is my Yeshua(Salvation/JESUS),
I will trust and not be afraid;
‘For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song;
He also has become my Salvation/Yeshua.’ ”
Therefore with joy you will draw water
From the wells of salvation = John 4:13
Salvation/Yeshua answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.
But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
John 1:1
I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?
It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).
Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it !
The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement"
(Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.
"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.
There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to...
1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"
Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.
who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)
"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)
Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God.
Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!
Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
Pay attention....
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?
Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).
According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:
Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.
I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."
The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:
"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).
So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:
"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."
With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!
You can let go of your theological ankles now.... Your spanking is complete!
Last edited:
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
BLAH BLAH BLAH
man's intellectual falling from Grace
HEAVEN to earth = There is no other Name by which you @Pierac can be SAVED
Behold, God is my Yeshua(Salvation/JESUS),
I will trust and not be afraid;
‘For Yah, the Lord, is my strength and song;
He also has become my Salvation/Yeshua.’ ”
Therefore with joy you will draw water
From the wells of salvation/JESUS
Salvation/Yeshua answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.
But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” - John 4:13
Don't be an intellectual dim-whit
INSTEAD = become like a child of faith that believes every word of Elohim = Hebrews 11: 3 "By faith we understand"
What do you find in this that persuades you that there is a God besides the Messiah’s?
I read this question on X / Twitter yesterday:
“Which God does Jesus worship?”
x.com
x.com
I would tell her that he worships the God of Jewish monotheism. Would you tell her that he worships the Trinity?
Is God the only Savior?
I imagine by now you may be arguing with me and saying something like this: Well, if Jesus is not God in human flesh what you say to the Scriptures that say only God can save? After all, God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides me" (Isaiah 40 3:11). If Jesus is not God and there are two saviors! And this is something the Bible here clearly excludes.
We have already seen a strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not one single Old Testament prophecy that supports it. Not one verse foretells that God himself was going to become a man in order to save us. The opposite is the case. The prophets predicted a human being who would under God's anointing Spirit rescue us.
Wherein lies the solution? Ah, let's now read this through our Hebrew eyes and see what a difference it makes. Remember that dictum the Jews had about the law of agency where "the agent is as the principal himself"? It applies right here.
Let's go back to Exodus 23. You remember that we used this chapter earlier to illustrate the Hebrew law of agency. We saw that the angel of the Lord acted in God's stead. What the angel did in said was really what God himself did and said, for "My name is in him" (v. 21). In verse 23 Jehovah explained, "For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivities and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them." The angel was the instrument through whom God destroyed the enemies.
Now let's proceed on in the chapter. God says to the Israelites, "I will send my terror ahead of you… I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivities, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you" (v. 27-28).
To our understanding this sounds as if the LORD himself is going to do the work. But when we come to verse 31: "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you." So God expects the Israelites to drive their enemies out. Is there a contradiction here? Will God Himself drive out their enemies or will the Israelites do it? We note the principle again and again. Got says He will act when in fact He is going to empower his angels and his people to do the work.
This kind of talk has a thorough Hebrew feel about it. Actions that are directly ascribed to God are in fact carried out by his commissioned agents. Take another instance: "in the LORD… he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" (2 Kings 14:27).
Once again we observe the clear distinction between God who is the ultimate Author of deliverance and his appointed agent who in this case was King Jeroboam. Or take this verse: "therefore you did deliver them into the hands of the oppressors who oppressed them. But when they cry to You in the time of their distress, You did hear from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You did give them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their it oppressors" (Nehemiah 9:27).
Graeser, the author of One God and One Lord, p.363. Writes:
God, Christ and others are referred to as "saviors," but that clearly does not make them identical. The term "Savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the terms seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scriptures can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.
Is often been argued that the very name Jesus, which means "Yahweh saves," prove Jesus is Jehovah because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). But the logic is not consistently applied because the O.T. name Joshua means "Yahweh saves." I have never yet heard someone who believes in the deity of Christ argue that Joshua was God in the flesh. We know that the O.T. Joshua was God appointed man to deliver Israel. As Joshua and Israel went forth in obedience to his word God save them. Just so, in the matter of our salvation, God sent forth his son into battle. Through Jesus God has saved us. This is why both God and Jesus are called Savior.
This same line of reasoning applies to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2. This is one of the most commonly appealed to Scriptures that allegedly proves that Jesus must be God, because "only God can forgive sins" (v.7). When Jesus pronounced the man forgiven/healed, the Pharisees say that Jesus is "blaspheming" because he is claiming to be God. But a little careful attention to detail will show that Jesus is not claiming deity. He is rather claiming "authority." He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" (v.10). The parallel account in Matthew's report is that once the people saw Jesus healed a paralytic, "they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men" ( Matt 9:8). We note that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son of Man," that is, the human Messiah, with a God given right to pronounce forgiveness. Not too much later Jesus invested other men-his apostles-with the same authority to forgive sins: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; he to retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). If only God can forgive sins, then God and Jesus and the apostles are all God! Besides, there is no teaching anywhere in the Bible that says only God can forgive. Even Christians are commanded to forgive each other sin (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). The fact that the Pharisees say that only God can forgive sins does not make this an established Biblical doctrine. The Pharisees often had wrong doctrine and were often corrected by our Lord Jesus. This was one such occasion.
Those who believe that Jesus can only be our Savior if he is God sometimes appeal to the prophecy from Jeremiah 23: (In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is his name by which he will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness’" (Jer. 23:6).
Does this not say that the coming Savior will be "The LORD our righteousness," that is, God himself? This is easily answered when we note that a few chapters later we have this prophecy in Jeremiah 33: "in those days Judah shall be saved in Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the LORD is our righteousness’ (v.16).
Here the city of Jerusalem is given the very same title as the coming redeemer earlier. I have never yet heard anyone argue that the city of Jerusalem must also be God himself because it bears the same title as Jehovah. Hebrew understanding is needed to avoid the confusion.
This is why it is fallacious to reason that because Jesus is called the "King of Kings and the Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16) he must necessarily be Almighty God Himself. The fact that Artaxerxes is called "king of kings" and that God himself calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" does not put these men in the same league as Messiah Jesus, nor mean they have the same nature as him. The designation "king of kings" is obviously a very Hebrew way of speaking that has nothing to do with the equivalency of nature. The Hebrews could also speak of a "servant of servants," which simply means to the lowest of the low (Gen 9:25). In the book of Daniel God addresses Nebuchadnezzar: "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory" (Dan. 2:37).
In the same Hebrew fashion, when Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as "the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords" the message conveyed is that God has also given him the Kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory of the Age to Come. Equality of being with the God who gives the Kingdom does not come into the equation, for either Nebuchadnezzar or Jesus. If, as already noted, to share the same nomenclature as God does not prove literal identity with God himself, the same holds true for the sharing of the same titles. Whilst Jesus may share the title "king of kings and Lord of Lords" with God his Father, there is one title reserved uniquely for the Father God. No other individual, including the Lord Jesus, is ever called by the title "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17). This title, as well as "the Lord God" (Rev. 1:8), is always reserved for the one true God, who is the Father.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
It is all throughout the Holy Scriptures beginning in Genesis.
You must have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and complete submission unto Him in order to SEE.
Genesis 1:26 "Let Us make man in Our image according to Our likeness" = Spoken 3 times = for each Elohim
What do you say to trinitarians who don’t agree with your conclusion?
And the late question I added:
Which God does Jesus worship?
My answer to that question is the God of Jewish monotheism. Would your answer be the Trinity?
Similar threads
