Holes in the trinity

[yokomodoful]

I see no evidence that God was talking to some "person" of Himself in Genesis 1:26. I ask you again, when were the Angels created. Was God not talking to the Angels when he said of Adam "They shall be like one of us"? It doesn't really matter if you see no evidence in this case, because there's no evidence of any kind of Trinitarian concept in early Judaism, so the only plausible explanation taking grammatical accuracy into account is referring to the "Council of gods", the Angels. There's a reason why most Trinitarian scholars are absolutely urging their audiences to stop using Genesis 1:26 as a proof text. It makes them look bad.

The Trinity Delusion: Genesis 1:26
Torah (Teachings) of/about Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ) - REAL Messianic truth rebuking the Trinity and lawlessness

First off, the Epistle of Barnabas was most likely not written by Barnabas. I don't think even the Catholic Church thinks it is, let alone any scholar whatsoever. Second off, I don't see how my explanation of him talking to his son being the Logos remotely is not "taking him at his word".

Psalm 110 is YHWH talking to his "lord". As you know, the word "lord" when it's not a direct substitution for the tetragrammaton, applies to kings, fathers, husbands, etc. Thus, it is the Father (The LORD) speaking to the Logos (My lord, lower case), who is the "king of kings", yet the Father, as it says in Sirach, is the "king of king of kings".

Hope that helps.

The site you listed above has it's own agenda and puts words in the mouth of who you call Trinitarian scholars.

Here is another site with quotes from many early Christians regarding genesis 1:26. Some quotes were before the trinity was fully realized.
God in Three Persons | Catholic Answers

The gospels as a whole especially John, proclaim that Jesus is God.

I believe we discussed the gospel of John when Thomas said to Jesus, "my Lord and my God" If you listen to Jesus's answer to Thomas:
Because you have seen me have you believed?
Thomas did not say now I believe you have risen he said "My Lord and my God" The answer Jesus gave is referring to 'the proclamation "My Lord and my God" Jesus was affirming this. I do not believe this is a an example of a statement of emphasis like "Holy... or OMG. There would be no reason to include the statement if that is all it was. That would be bordering on taking the Lords name in vain. The My Lord and my God quote was passed on by oral tradition for many years before it was written down. Listen to the above words with an audio bible or someone reading it. It is obvious that Jesus's answer affirms the statement of Thomas. I do not need a biblical scholar to tell me that and I do not need someone to tell me what proof texts to use. It is as clear as day.

As for the angels. I do not know exactly when they were created, but is reasonable to believe that they were created at the beginning of the first day of creation. However the angels did not take part in creating man. It was God directly and therefore the "Let us" part does not make sense.

:

 

[yokomodoful]

Jesus Christ make it perfectly obvious Humankind and Heavenkind are made to be united for the purpose of God's will be done. That is what "in our image" means. At the time of the saying of it there need not have been anyone but ONE saying it. Was God not saying it TO the created thing. I think so. It is about purpose, not design. The purpose is to be united in the spirit. Ephesians 4:3 Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace. That is the Our Image. We can accomplish nothing alone. We are designed to cooperate. The OUR. The design of cooperation is called the Our Image.

Interesting thoughts and sheds some light onto what our image means. However, he could have said, I will create man in our image or Let me create man in our image.

 

[savagewind]

Interesting thoughts and sheds some light onto what our image means. However, he could have said, I will create man in our image or Let me create man in our image.

You are meditating on ENGLISH. It was not written that way. And it was not written according to carnal knowledge.

The words are;
1. Spiritual
2. Ancient
3. Not English

 

[Shermana]

The site you listed above has it's own agenda and puts words in the mouth of who you call Trinitarian scholars.

Here is another site with quotes from many early Christians regarding genesis 1:26. Some quotes were before the trinity was fully realized.
God in Three Persons | Catholic Answers

The gospels as a whole especially John, proclaim that Jesus is God.

I believe we discussed the gospel of John when Thomas said to Jesus, "my Lord and my God" If you listen to Jesus's answer to Thomas:
Because you have seen me have you believed?
Thomas did not say now I believe you have risen he said "My Lord and my God" The answer Jesus gave is referring to 'the proclamation "My Lord and my God" Jesus was affirming this. I do not believe this is a an example of a statement of emphasis like "Holy... or OMG. There would be no reason to include the statement if that is all it was. That would be bordering on taking the Lords name in vain. The My Lord and my God quote was passed on by oral tradition for many years before it was written down. Listen to the above words with an audio bible or someone reading it. It is obvious that Jesus's answer affirms the statement of Thomas. I do not need a biblical scholar to tell me that and I do not need someone to tell me what proof texts to use. It is as clear as day.

As for the angels. I do not know exactly when they were created, but is reasonable to believe that they were created at the beginning of the first day of creation. However the angels did not take part in creating man. It was God directly and therefore the "Let us" part does not make sense.

:

Everyone has their own agenda. Some have an agenda for truth more so than others.

John does not proclaim Jesus was God, he proclaims he was A god. The issue is in translating it with correct grammar and context. When done correctly, we see that John was proclaiming that Jesus was the incarnation of the Logos, not God Himself.

Thomas, as I bring up over and over again, was merely making a "Statement of exclamation", which was how even prominent Trinitarian orthodox authorities in the 300s interpreted it as. It is only regarded as "Taking the Lord's name in vain" in much later interprtations as the 3rd commandment is merely about not making false vows. Also, there's the issue that the ending of John totally clashes with the ending of Matthew and Luke, which may be part of why those like Bernard Muller think John ended around 20:24 instead.

We can argue about what is as "Clear as day" until the cows come home. What's clear as day to me is obviously not clear as day to you.

It all boils down to issues of context and grammar and potentially mischevious interpolation issues. How are we to determine who has it correct exactly? Perhaps as I say with several others of who we run into this snag with of ignoring the scholarly counter-arguments and insisting on doubling down on the initial assertions, we should ask God Himself to arbritrate which of us speaks the truth and which of us speaks blasphemous heresy, no?

 

[savagewind]

John does not proclaim Jesus was God, he proclaims he was A god

I wonder if you learned this from someone or is it your own discovery?

 

[yokomodoful]

Everyone has their own agenda. Some have an agenda for truth more so than others.

John does not proclaim Jesus was God, he proclaims he was A god. The issue is in translating it with correct grammar and context. When done correctly, we see that John was proclaiming that Jesus was the incarnation of the Logos, not God Himself.

Thomas, as I bring up over and over again, was merely making a "Statement of exclamation", which was how even prominent Trinitarian orthodox authorities in the 300s interpreted it as. It is only regarded as "Taking the Lord's name in vain" in much later interprtations as the 3rd commandment is merely about not making false vows. Also, there's the issue that the ending of John totally clashes with the ending of Matthew and Luke, which may be part of why those like Bernard Muller think John ended around 20:24 instead.

We can argue about what is as "Clear as day" until the cows come home. What's clear as day to me is obviously not clear as day to you.

It all boils down to issues of context and grammar and potentially mischevious interpolation issues. How are we to determine who has it correct exactly? Perhaps as I say with several others of who we run into this snag with of ignoring the scholarly counter-arguments and insisting on doubling down on the initial assertions, we should ask God Himself to arbritrate which of us speaks the truth and which of us speaks blasphemous heresy, no?

Yes. Thank you for finding something we can agree upon.

 

[Shermana]

I wonder if you learned this from someone or is it your own discovery?

All discoveries are based on what someone else has provided the foundations for. How would I know what Anarthrous and indefinite means if someone else had not described it?

I used to believe it was "Divine" as (prominent Trinitarian scholars and authorities) Wallace, Goodspeed, and Moffat used in John 1:1, but then I realized they were just basically dancing around the fact that it would imply "A divine being" as many other scholars use.

 

[savagewind]

The people of Babal were all speaking one language. If their one language was not confuse "anything will be possible for them". Words are powerful. Even godlike. John is saying words are god to humans. You know they are.

 

[savagewind]

John 1:5 Light is the word of truth. What is darkness? It is the opposite of the word of truth. What is the opposite of the word of truth? More words. Lying words.

 

[savagewind]

About the rule was logos. And the logos was advantageous for The God and gods have been the logos. John 1:1 Look it up.

 

[Shermana]

By the way, Justin Martyr is one of my favorite figures to quote regarding the "Trinity". He was most definitely a proto-Arian. In fact, I would not doubt that Arius got his views from a line of thinking that descended from Justin Martyr (and from whoever taught him and whoever taught them).

I would love to know how your website reconciles what he said here (Which I imagine is why your website cuts him off right there....)

""God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness.’ . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 [A.D. 155])."

With the following, the rest of the quote:

even as the Scripture [Proverbs 8:22-31] by Solomon has made clear that he whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten AS A Beginning BEFORE all His creatures and as Offspring of God … We [Christians] know [Christ] to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures. … He is the Son of God and since we call him the Son, we have understood that he proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will.

The language clearly suggests that the Logos itself, the Incarnation of Wisdom, was simply "begotten" before everything else was, not that it wasn't "begotten". It "proceeded" which means it did not always exist without a beginning! Which is why Shotwell says:

“The language here is such that it cannot be argued that Justin considered the Logos to be eternal[*]. The most that can be said about the Logos is that he was created before anything else.” (The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr, London 1965).”

So Justin Martyr most clearly says that the Logos, the Son of God, was CREATED. That goes against everything the Classical Trinity says!

 

[savagewind]

John 2:2 says "he" was in the beginning. I think it means "this" (situation) has been from the beginning.

 

[savagewind]

The first of John is about the clashing of Words. But he is saying that all along The God Who IS YHVH was with it. God is the head of Christ who is the truth who is the head of every man.

 

[savagewind]

You will be judged by your own words. Words are gods.

 

[Shermana]

The first of John is about the clashing of Words. But he is saying that all along The God Who IS YHVH was with it. God is the head of Christ who is the truth who is the head of every man.

Yes, THE God was WITH The Logos. God cannot be the Head of Christ if they are the same exact thing. The head may be the head of the body in an idiomatic meaning, but that doesn't mean the body is the same thing as the head. Thus, God must be separate, not just a "Different person" from Christ to be "the head of Christ".

 

[yokomodoful]

By the way, Justin Martyr is one of my favorite figures to quote regarding the "Trinity". He was most definitely a proto-Arian. In fact, I would not doubt that Arius got his views from a line of thinking that descended from Justin Martyr (and from whoever taught him and whoever taught them).

I would love to know how your website reconciles what he said here (Which I imagine is why your website cuts him off right there....)



With the following, the rest of the quote:


The language clearly suggests that the Logos itself, the Incarnation of Wisdom, was simply "begotten" before everything else was, not that it wasn't "begotten". It "proceeded" which means it did not always exist without a beginning! Which is why Shotwell says:





So Justin Martyr most clearly says that the Logos, the Son of God, was CREATED. That goes against everything the Classical Trinity says!

Where does it say that the son of God is created? I only see that quote from Shotwell, whoever he is. Because He was begotten before anything else does not exclude that He always existed.

 

[savagewind]

Where does it say that the son of God is created? I only see that quote from Shotwell, whoever he is. Because He was begotten before anything else does not exclude that He always existed.

2 John 1:7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Jesus Christ coming in the flesh means created.

 

[savagewind]

Strong's Greek: 1096. ??????? (ginomai) -- to come into being, to happen, to become BECOME

ginomai: to come into being, to happen, to become

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his* glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

* I believe his is the wrong pronoun. It should read "It" referring to the word, not the man.

 

[yokomodoful]

2 John 1:7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Jesus Christ coming in the flesh means created.

Yes. That thought just came to me. Jesus existed in history as fully human and to deny his humanity is similar to denying His divinity. He rose again and in His resurection, he is the firstborn of all creation and now we can be born again into the resurrection and be born of the spirit.

 

[Shermana]

Where does it say that the son of God is created? I only see that quote from Shotwell, whoever he is. Because He was begotten before anything else does not exclude that He always existed.

Then you have a very strange meaning of the word "begotten" and "proceeded". I suppose anyone can make up any definition of any word they want and rewrite things according to what they want it to mean besides its "Clear as day" meaning.