Holes in the trinity

[yokomodoful]

Would Jesus, being fully human walk around saying I am God, worship me? Is that an example of how a man should live? Would people respond well to that? Would that be a good example of humility and obedience? You were given multiple examples of clues and direct language of His divinity. Every time, you state it should be interpretated another way. With completely different language. Why would I believeve your version over 2000 years worth of study and interpretation? Why should I believe in a trinitarian conspiracy theory? What is their motive for altering the truth?

 

[savagewind]

Would Jesus, being fully human walk around saying I am God, worship me? Is that an example of how a man should live? Would people respond well to that? Would that be a good example of humility and obedience? You were given multiple examples of clues and direct language of His divinity. Every time, you state it should be interpretated another way. With completely different language. Why would I believeve your version over 2000 years worth of study and interpretation? Why should I believe in a trinitarian conspiracy theory? What is their motive for altering the truth?

Imagine Jesus 1. sent by The Father 2. dedicated to the will of The Father 3. protected by The Holy Spirit from sin 4. teaching only what is true from the Father 5. loving The Father

It doesn't make him the father. The Father created him for himself to show us himself and Jesus did an excellent job of it. It is not amazing to believe The Father can be the father. It is awesome the man Jesus could reflect The Father so very well. Why do trinitarians INSIST on taking away the glory of the son and giving it back to the father?

 

[Shermana]

Would Jesus, being fully human walk around saying I am God, worship me?

According to many Trintiarian attempts to distort John 8:58, they basically say just that. Minus the "Worship me" part.

Is that an example of how a man should live?

I don't even see what this has to do with anything I said. Can you just admit that you don't want to address any of the counter-arguments?

Would people respond well to that? Would that be a good example of humility and obedience? You were given multiple examples of clues and direct language of His divinity.

No, we were given multiple direct clues of his being a Divine being, but not God himself, and we are given multiple clues of how Trinitarians warp and distort the context and grammar alike to reach a different conclusion than what he was actually saying.

Every time, you state it should be interpretated another way.

That's correct, and every time you state that it should be interpreted only the way you see fit (which is the traditionalist Trinitarian way) and simply write off all the logical, scholarly counter-arguments. You can't even answer a basic question such as how you reconcile John and Matthew and Luke's endings, and you simply handwave and brush off the arguments against your interpretations. This would be funny if it wasn't what almost every single Trinitarian does when they can't disprove the counter-arguments.

With completely different language.

What exactly do you mean "With completely different language" exactly?

Why would I believeve your version over 2000 years worth of study and interpretation?

You mean why should you believe what the establishment has pushed for 1700 years or so while burning and chopping the heads off or socially ostracizing of people who disagreed or spoke up or asked too many questions? You mean why should you not even listen to the counter arguments? Once again, if you don't want to debate, stick to the DIRs.

Why should I believe in a trinitarian conspiracy theory? What is their motive for altering the truth?

Anyone who denies "Conspiracy Theories" among the Orthodox Church history has proven they aren't to be taken remotely seriously. The Trinity was very helpful for the early proto-Orthodox Church in attracting pagans to the fold. Later, it became a Linchpin, Sancrosanct doctrine. What would Arius's motivation be to teach Arianism? What would the Goths' motivation be to institute the Arian Church?

Now would you like to actually address my counter arguments or do you want to further demonstrate that you are completely naive to the entire corpus of debate regarding the Trinity? If you want to simply brush off all the non-church-aligned scholars and manuscript issues and clashes and grammar controveries and just make generalized arguments, this is probably not the forum section for you.

 

[Katzpur]

I wonder how God likes being compared to eggs, clovers and H2O. He must find all of this very amusing.

 

[yokomodoful]

According to many Trintiarian attempts to distort John 8:58, they basically say just that. Minus the "Worship me" part.



I don't even see what this has to do with anything I said. Can you just admit that you don't want to address any of the counter-arguments?



What counter arguments are you speaking of? Your argument is changing or deleting words that are there in every version of the bible. That is not a difference in interpretation. Mathew's ending isnt the same nor does it conflict with the others. There are many differences even between the synoptic gospels, does that mean we delete and change the differences? Some stress different parts of the life of jesus. Many believe the Gospel of John was an answer to those who denied the divinity of jesus. Do you think the end of mathew conflicts with the others? Can you be more specific as to why you think it is conflicting.

 

[Muffled]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus is God's son. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son? How? The definition of son is someone born to or adopted. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?

I believe God has a beginning in Jesus. I believe God had a beginning with Moses at the burnung bush.

 

[Muffled]

A son is someone who gets added to a family, even if it's just a family of one. ADDED. So either Jesus was not with God from the beginning or Jesus is not God's son.

I believe your definition is incorrect. A son can be born to a woman without a family.

I beieve this is a non-sequitur ie the conclusion does not follow from the prenises.

I believe it only becomes a family when it becomes two related persons.

I believe you are belaboring the point. The point is that the spirit that abides in Jesus is the Spirit of God which has always existed. It is not the case that God morphs from a spirit into an animal or that the animal part has any part in God.

 

[Muffled]

I have a take on this question. When a human father gives birth to a son, he gives birth to a different person. But when God gave birth to his son (Jesus) he gave birth to himself. In other words, God the father was eternal, then he birthed himself INTO flesh. Anytime God the father took on FORM in the OT, he was manifesting the SON, that is, HIMSELF. If he did not take on form, no one could identify with him. So he takes on form, or manifests himself into form from Spirit.

Think of it like this, you have the ocean, it’s completely still, no fish, no nothing in it, no wind blowing on it, no waves, it’s still, no ripples, there’s no dirt or sand flowing in it, it’s all on the bottom. It’s so clear and still, that you could see right through it as if it was not there, yet, it is there. Then all of a sudden, wind blows, and you see a WAVE (that is FORM) but even though the form is distinct from the body of water, it is no less one and the same with the body of water.

Or, consider this analogy, you have wind, or air, with NO debris whatsoever in it, so it’s invisible to your naked eye, but then a tornado forms, it picks up debris and then you notice it starting to take SHAPE or FORM. But that wind current that flows into a tornado is no less one and the same with the rest of the wind and air.

Or take another analogy, vapor, liquid and ice, they are all different ways water exists, but vapor is no less one and the same in essence as with the liquid and ice is.

Does this help?

i believe this is incorrect. The only time God ever took on human form, He did it as a fully developed adult and not as the offspring of any human.

I believe the wording on this is in error. God manifests Himself through the flesh but the spirit remains the same. The Spirit does not become flesh and can't become flesh. Read John 3:6.

The wave analogy doesn't work but the wind one is pretty good and the same analogy that Jesus uses in John 3.

 

[savagewind]

I believe your definition is incorrect. A son can be born to a woman without a family.

OK but the child and the woman is a family unless of course she gives the child up for adoption but then the new parent or parents are the family. If the child never gets adopted the group home becomes the child's family. Oh brother. Didn't I know there must be a man present for a group to considered "family". I am having a troll thought.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The word "Begotten" is simply put a mistranslation or embellishment that doesn't reflect the Greek. It's "One and only", monogenes.

In this case, the KJV is indisputably, without question or doubt, necessarily and inarguably wrong. It should read:

New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The KJV-onlyists who insist it should read "begotten" are simply deluding themselves and going against what the Greek says as if they can rewrite the Greek.


The word Monogenes has absolutely nothing to do with any implication of how the methodology works. It's simply a way of saying "Unique" or "only one".

As well, even if it said "begotten", the word "begotten" comes from "beget", which in the KJV "begat" is only ever used for literal offspring reproduction, so the definition would probably not be radically changing to some vague abstract interpretation all of the sudden. It technically means "Obtain" but by the 1600s it was most likely only be used in the sense of "obtaining offspring through natural methods".

Online Etymology Dictionary

As well, the word "beginning" does not necessarily mean "The absolute beginning". The Logos is most likely referring to the same personified "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8, in that "Wisdom" was the First Created being, which corresponds to Jesus being the "Firstborn of Creation".

Why do you suppose the translators were, well, just so damn stupid?

 

[savagewind]

Why do you suppose the translators were, well, just so damn stupid?

The whole world lies in the power of the wicked one. To presume it doesn't mean you too is stupid. "Damn stupid".

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The whole world lies in the power of the wicked one. To presume it doesn't mean you too is stupid. "Damn stupid".

Wow, the KJV translators were possessed? Well bust my suspenders!

 

[savagewind]

Wow, the KJV translators were possessed? Well bust my suspenders!

Are you possessed by the air? I'm not.

Ephesians 2:2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

 

[savagewind]

Philippians 2:19 But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition. 20 For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare. 21 For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.…

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "-- 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you.

 

[Shermana]

Why do you suppose the translators were, well, just so damn stupid?

You could ask the same question of the NIV or any other translation that conflicts with the KJV. The answer may not be stupidity but rather embellishment, especially so in the sense of catering to an entrenched interpretation of the verse whether it was gramatically correct or not. Why don't you explain why you think the NIV and many other translations differ on this verse. Are they stupid?

 

[Shermana]

Wow, the KJV translators were possessed? Well bust my suspenders!

Possessed? Not necessarily? Under the influence of the Powers and Principalities who are? Perhaps. Not guided by the Spirit? Definitely.

 

[savagewind]

Possessed? Not necessarily? Under the influence of the Powers and Principalities who are? Perhaps. Not guided by the Spirit? Definitely.

Thank you! It is getting scary that so many people cannot think beyond two dimensions. I'll just say for grins the Spirit lives in abounding dimension but all the people but an extreme few choose to live in one or two. It seems that when they recognize they can think in just two (sometimes) they feel extraordinarily exceptional. They feel so good about themselve they stay there. For good. Oh brother. I should go. One more thing though - I know exactly why God felt it would be best to take Enoch out. I'm not half as good as Enoch. I am sure so God allows me to stay and suffer.

 

[savagewind]

Could you explain your interpretation of this verse -- particularly the part which says, "the Word was God." Thanks.

I have been shown it means it is the word that makes things happen. And I have been shown that the verb is wrong. It is not was it is is.

In the beginning is the word and the word is with God and the word is god.

I have more but I don't love talking to myself. Peace

 

[savagewind]

This isn't the more I mentioned I had but here it is (even though I am sure I'm talking to the wind). So the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong saying the word is A god. And the rest are wrong saying the word is THE GOD. And the reason why is words make bad things happen even as words can make good things happen. If you wish to get technical you might say the word is very many gods.

The fact that words can make bad things happen and some who claim to love God make bad things happen by their false teaching, words have become the shame of the Lord.

Anyone loving any lie at all to pass it along cannot possibly be beside The Lord to love HIM.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why don't you explain why you think the NIV and many other translations differ on this verse. Are they stupid?

The KJV is not the only version to use "begotten:" the American Standard, the Douay-Rheims, the New American Standard, the New King James (they must have been just as ignorant as the original translators), the Darby Translation, the Webster Bible, the Third Millennium Bible, Young's Literal Translation to name a few. Is it possible that there are more than one way to translate the original?