genuineoriginal
New member
That is not obvious.
Trinity Proof Scriptures
- Thread starter Mixed_Brown
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Nothing is obvious to a dim bulb like yourself.
genuineoriginal
New member
I don't.
The Bible does not claim that God is a trinity.
The Bible does not tell us that we are to believe God is a trinity.
The Bible does not tell us that we are to understand the nature of God.
The Bible teaches that God is one.
The Bible teaches that God is a spirit.
I am not.
genuineoriginal
New member
:wave2:
Right Divider
Body part
:thumb:
genuineoriginal
New member
Right Divider
Body part
Was the Word God?
Was the Word the Creator of all things?
Was the Word made flesh?
Right Divider
Body part
You are childish, as per usual.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
There you go, again, pretending to understand (and failing to understand) the nature of God.
Again, why are you such a hypocrite?
genuineoriginal
New member
The verse literally states "and God was the logos" or "and divine was the logos". καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
The translators switched God and logos around to say "the Word was God".
John 1:1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. |
The verse appears to be talking about God making all things "because of" or "through" (διά mistranslated as "by") the logos, not the logos itself making all things.
John 1:2-3 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. |
The logos was made flesh.
John 1:14 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. |
Of course that leaves the real question of what was meant by logos in this passage.
| Logos (UK: /ˈloʊɡɒs, ˈlɒɡɒs/, US: /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Ancient Greek: λόγος, translit. lógos; from λέγω, légō, lit. 'I say') is a term in Western philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse", but it became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge. Logos is the logic behind an argument. Logos tries to persuade an audience using logical arguments and supportive evidence. Logos is a persuasive technique often used in writing and rhetoric. Ancient Greek philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse; Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse" or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric, and considered it one of the three modes of persuasion alongside ethos and pathos. Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe. Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos) |
To understand what logos meant in John 1, we can look to the writings of Philo of Alexandria.
| 11. Doctrine of the Logos in Philo's Writings The pivotal and the most developed doctrine in Philo's writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system, is his doctrine of the Logos. By developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity, first in the development of the Christian Pauline myth and speculations of John, later in the Hellenistic Christian Logos and Gnostic doctrines of the second century. All other doctrines of Philo hinge on his interpretation of divine existence and action. The term Logos was widely used in the Greco-Roman culture and in Judaism. Through most schools of Greek philosophy, this term was used to designate a rational, intelligent and thus vivifying principle of the universe. This principle was deduced from an understanding of the universe as a living reality and by comparing it to a living creature. Philo offered various descriptions of the Logos. a. The Utterance of God b. The Divine Mind c. God's Transcendent Power d. First-born Son of God e. Universal Bond: in the Physical World and in the Human Soul f. Immanent Reason g. Immanent Mediator of the Physical Universe h. The Angel of the Lord, Revealer of God i. Multi-Named Archetype j. Soul-Nourishing Manna and Wisdom k. Intermediary Power l. "God" Philo himself, however, explains that to call the Logos "God" is not a correct appellation (Somn.1.230). Also, through this Logos, which men share with God, men know God and are able to perceive Him (LA 1.37-38). |
genuineoriginal
New member
You seem to think that there is more in what I said than what was stated.
The Bible does not tell us that we are to believe God is a trinity, so why would anyone teach that we are supposed to believe that God is a trinity?
The Bible does not tell us that we are to understand the nature of God, so why would anyone teach that we are supposed to understand the nature of God?
The Bible teaches that God is one, so why would anyone teach that God is three?
Again: I am not.
Believe what the Bible clearly teaches and be skeptical about any Christian doctrines that are not clearly taught in the Bible.
The Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity.
So, be skeptical about that doctrine.
genuineoriginal
New member
:chuckle:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Since the Bible teaches that Jesus is eternal, why do you teach that Jesus is not eternal?
Since the Bible does not teach that Jesus was created, why do you teach that Jesus was created?
Since the Bible does not teach that Jesus is not God, why do you teach that Jesus is not God?
Since the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, why do you teach that Jesus is not God?
Since the Bible teaches that God is trinitarian in nature, why do you teach that God is not trinitarian in nature?
Again, why are you such a hypocrite?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Here is more meaningless jargon you have spun out hoping to hide your inconsistencies and hypocrisies: "receive glory by the passage". What the heck is that? You and I both know that that is meaningless, and designed to create a smokescreen.
Here, again, is Philippians 2:8-11 KJV:
Only a deranged person, a fool, after reading this passage, could deny that Jesus is glorified by God the Father. But, you deny that Jesus is glorified by God the Father. You deny that this passage shows Jesus to be glorified by God the Father.
Obviously, your "question", "whether it is Jesus..." is rhetorical. By it, you are denying that Jesus is shown to receive glory in Philippians 2:8-11 KJV.
Anyway, it is not either/or; it is both/and. In Philippians 2:8-11, BOTH Jesus--God the Son--is shown to receive glory, AND God the Father is shown to receive glory. You deny that Jesus is shown to receive glory. You deny that Jesus receives glory.
Do you even read the things you write? "to whose glory is it to"? Really? "his own or the Father"? Seriously? Why must you continually butcher the English language?
According to Philippians 2:8-11, Jesus is glorified by God the Father. Yes or No?
According to Philippians 2:8-11, Jesus' glorification by God the Father is EQUAL to God the Father's glorification by Jesus. Yes or No?
In Isaiah 45:23 KJV, the LORD says:
To WHOM would you say "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear", according to this verse?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Why don't you just quote, from the Bible, Jesus' own words, where, speaking to men about His Father, He uses the phrase "our Father" so as to include Himself in the referent of the pronoun 'our'? Go for it, Bible Student®!
No it wasn't.
Well, I would hate to be wrong, and, fortunately, I'm not, and JudgeRightly's not. However, obviously YOU don't hate being wrong.
genuineoriginal
New member
I don't.
I don't.
I teach that the Bible does not teach the Trinity doctrine, because the Bible does not teach the Trinity doctrine.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, it does not teach that Jesus is God.
You are mistaken, the Bible doesn't teach anything about trinitarianism.
I am not a hypocrite, but you are very ignorant about what the Bible does and does not teach.
Too late.
Rosenritter
New member
Considering that if A = B, therefore B = A, what difference do you think this would make other than rhythm and meter?
Wycliffe (English translation of the Latin)
1 In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.
2 This was in the bigynnyng at God.
3 Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad.
Aimiel
Well-known member
Do not make that mistake. The proof is in The Holy Bible, since it clearly describes God as Three: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. When reading Scripture as a child, many things become far more clear and easier to understand. :thumb:
Rosenritter
New member
1 John 5:7 KJV
(7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Did it say "the One is three?" or did it say "these three are one?" It sure looks to me like he's saying those three are one. And although I don't have a specific scripture for this, I'm fairly certain if we asked him about the Rock, the Almighty, the LORD of Hosts, and the Lamb, he would tell us those were one as well. Not two separate ones that add together to make two, but the same one.