Is Trinity in the Bible?

[Dirty Penguin]

You are throwing a ton of scripture out there and asking questions that would take many pages to cover. Let's get back to what is actually being discussed here...

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

So, let's consider your position with just this passage. If, in fact, 'the Word' here simply means that Jesus was God's messenger, then that has simple implications that I find illogical:

Why would you find that illogicial? Is it because you have a hard time excepting that simple phrase as being a direct description of what Yeshua represented and what the writer believed he represented? It is the interpretation by you and others that, that verse means Yeshua is God. In John 17:14 Yeshua tells us he gave them God's (logos). He was not referring to his own word or himself because he says they hated God's (logos) because (*IT*) was not of this world. We know he was not referring to himself because at the end he say "even as I am not of this world"...So he reveals to us that the logos was somethingthat he was given to give to the people. This logos he was to give to the people explains why he said his doctrine was not his....he was commanded what he should say....he was taught that which he had seen with God..... If the writer simply wanted us to believe Yeshua was the logos then in John 17:14 he could have substituted (word) for (instructions or message)....but instead shows clarification as to 1:1 by revealing Yeshua's statement in 17:14...Yeshua never saw himself as God either in heaven or on earth. If he is omniptotent then there is no "logical" reason for him to say "all power is given to me in heaven"...... So his role in heaven was not that of God but as God's servant.

The scriptures are so plain and simple to read and what is attributed to Yeshua saying is direct. In the begining was the word and the word was with God and God was the word........and God's word is truth. This is simple and it is in the scripture. Yeshua was charged with bringing God's simple truth, God's word, to the people. This is all in the scripture. We know that to be the case because the doctrine he spoke was from God. He tells us he speaks that which he was taught and commanded to say. He tells us he spoke that which he had seen with God. Logic would tell us that this is not God talking but the student of God.

1: Jesus existed before creation, before he actually had a purpose (since there was no one there to give the message to).

The information that exist is that Yeshua had glory with God (Not as God) before the world was created. Again, this denotes a servant. One that is below God. To think him to actually be God is pure speculation and interpretation. He shows us he is seperate from God in heaven and on earth. This is all done trhough his words and his actions.

2: Creation included the host of heaven, so unless you want to put Jesus in a special class all to himself between angel and God, then you must conclude that he was, in fact, God.

This, again, is where you are incorrect. If I need clarification as to how Yeshua saw himself before he came here and while he was on earth then it can be found. John's personal statement in his prologue does little to convince me Yeshua saw himself as God........but when I find Yeshua saying "all power is given to me in heaven".......I draw the conclusion that Yeshua is not God. I am justified in that belief when I read other statements he made and the ones from his followers who described him as being a servant of God or the son of God. John 17 (His Prayer To God) tells a lot about his character and how he saw himself in relation to God. He reveals the truth of John 10:30 and tells us of a oneess he has with God and he prayed his followers would share that oneness because they accepted the word of God he had given to them and believed that God sent him. Logic also should tell you that if one is sent then there is a sender. If one is taught then there must be a teacher. If one is instructed or commanded then there must be an instructor or commander. One who is omnipotent and omniscient can't not be commanded or given power. Think that an omnipotent omniscient can be taught or given power is illogical.

To do otherwise would contradict mountains of scripture explicitly stating the existence of one, and only one, God.

There is a mountain of scriptual evidence from Yeshua that tells us he is not God. Most by him and some by those that followed him. God's position in the OT was to constantly tell the people who he was. Yeshua never said to his followers he was God. He said to the contrary. His followers understood this. They knew that whatever he had was given to him by God. This is the beuty of Martha's statement and her understanding as to who he was and who God was. The beuty of his own statement saying "my god and your god"....."my god, my god why have you left me?".......are pefect indicators as to how his followers saw him and how he saw himself. Since some like to quote the letters of Paul, his statement was perfect when he said "the god and father of Yeshua the Massiah:.....

3: I can't think of anything that can simultaneously be "with" someone and actually "be" someone.

Exactly.......!!!!! Yeshua does reavel himself this way which is another indicator that he is not God. To be "with" some one does not mean you are that person. OT says husband and wife are one. Does that mean one person....? No....It means one in purpose...one in spirit......

Your analogy must mean that the second and third clauses are referring to the same noun in a different way, which is in no way explicit in that verse. You can't just say that "this scripture means this" or "that scripture means that" without having something other than a nice tight fit with your message.

I'm not sure what you mean. You may have to explain.

I want to know one example of something that can be both "with" someone and actually "be" that same something simultaneously.

The OT does not reavel God this way nor does Yeshua reveal himself this way in the NT. If you see that as a connection then it is your interpretation. Yeshua reveals himself seperate from God in heaven and on earth.

You cannot say that "the Father and Son had different wills so Trinity is out" for example, because the concept of Trinity came into being to explain this difference (in light of the rest of scripture).

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

This lets me know that (*before*) Yeshua was sent here by God he had his own will. This is before he existed in the flesh so the concept of trinity does not apply. One in purpose does not mean one in the same. He did not teach he and God were the same. He does not equal himself to God......

 

[kmkemp]

Why would you find that illogicial? Is it because you have a hard time excepting that simple phrase as being a direct description of what Yeshua represented and what the writer believed he represented? It is the interpretation by you and others that, that verse means Yeshua is God. In John 17:14 Yeshua tells us he gave them God's (logos). He was not referring to his own word or himself because he says they hated God's (logos) because (*IT*) was not of this world. We know he was not referring to himself because at the end he say "even as I am not of this world"...So he reveals to us that the logos was somethingthat he was given to give to the people. This logos he was to give to the people explains why he said his doctrine was not his....he was commanded what he should say....he was taught that which he had seen with God..... If the writer simply wanted us to believe Yeshua was the logos then in John 17:14 he could have substituted (word) for (instructions or message)....but instead shows clarification as to 1:1 by revealing Yeshua's statement in 17:14...Yeshua never saw himself as God either in heaven or on earth.

Ummm, so now you are going backwards and saying that you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to Jesus?

If he is omniptotent then there is no "logical" reason for him to say "all power is given to me in heaven"...... So his role in heaven was not that of God but as God's servant.

Hah, again, I have already addressed this.

The scriptures are so plain and simple to read and what is attributed to Yeshua saying is direct. In the begining was the word and the word was with God and God was the word........and God's word is truth. This is simple and it is in the scripture. Yeshua was charged with bringing God's simple truth, God's word, to the people. This is all in the scripture. We know that to be the case because the doctrine he spoke was from God. He tells us he speaks that which he was taught and commanded to say. He tells us he spoke that which he had seen with God. Logic would tell us that this is not God talking but the student of God.

The concept of Trinity was discerned in light of everything you've said, not in spite of it. Therefore, it is only your misunderstanding of the concept that leads you to contradictions and not anything inherit with the Trinity.

The information that exist is that Yeshua had glory with God (Not as God) before the world was created. Again, this denotes a servant. One that is below God. To think him to actually be God is pure speculation and interpretation. He shows us he is seperate from God in heaven and on earth. This is all done trhough his words and his actions.

No, no. He tells us that he is one with God. Unless you are saying that the 2nd "the Word" is different from the 3rd "the Word". Of course, you haven't addressed anything about John 1:1 here outside of your first paragraph. I consider the post I'm quoting to be one long-winded non-answer to my request of discussing what you think this ONE verse means.

This, again, is where you are incorrect. If I need clarification as to how Yeshua saw himself before he came here and while he was on earth then it can be found. John's personal statement in his prologue does little to convince me Yeshua saw himself as God........but when I find Yeshua saying "all power is given to me in heaven".......I draw the conclusion that Yeshua is not God. I am justified in that belief when I read other statements he made and the ones from his followers who described him as being a servant of God or the son of God. John 17 (His Prayer To God) tells a lot about his character and how he saw himself in relation to God. He reveals the truth of John 10:30 and tells us of a oneess he has with God and he prayed his followers would share that oneness because they accepted the word of God he had given to them and believed that God sent him. Logic also should tell you that if one is sent then there is a sender. If one is taught then there must be a teacher. If one is instructed or commanded then there must be an instructor or commander. One who is omnipotent and omniscient can't not be commanded or given power. Think that an omnipotent omniscient can be taught or given power is illogical.

Again, you are misunderstanding the Trinity. I don't know how much more clear I can make my statements. You'll forgive me if I give up responding to similar arguments in this post and future posts.

There is a mountain of scriptual evidence from Yeshua that tells us he is not God. Most by him and some by those that followed him. God's position in the OT was to constantly tell the people who he was. Yeshua never said to his followers he was God. He said to the contrary.

I would love to see a quote where Yeshua said he was not God. Good luck with that.

Exactly.......!!!!! Yeshua does reavel himself this way which is another indicator that he is not God. To be "with" some one does not mean you are that person. OT says husband and wife are one. Does that mean one person....? No....It means one in purpose...one in spirit......

Hah! On the contrary, that is what the Trinity is built on. Without the Trinity, you can have no possible explanation for this weird phrase, and the church fathers recognized this as well. It is very fitting that you agree that WE have no examples ON EARTH. That is why it is hard for us to comprehend. Again, I would refer you to C.S. Lewis' analogy with dimensions.

I would love for you to actually answer my 3 illogical ramifications from John 1:1 using your theory and how you reconcile them (without using the fallacy of trying to disprove the Trinity with other verses as stated in my last post).

The OT does not reavel God this way nor does Yeshua reveal himself this way in the NT. If you see that as a connection then it is your interpretation. Yeshua reveals himself seperate from God in heaven and on earth.

Except for this verse? I am not even talking about the rest of scripture, and your answer to my question cannot just simply be "the rest of the Bible doesn't agree". Instead, you must have some reason as to why that is the case.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ummm, so now you are going backwards and saying that you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to Jesus?

Here we go with the misunderstanding on your part again. What I said was he was the representaion of God's logos. in John 17:14 we get clarification to John 1:1. John 1:1 is the writer's interpretation as to what he believed the word was. Before anything was God. Even the word of God is God. This logos (word) was brought forth through Yeshua who before coming here was taught and commanded what he should say. This word was not Yeshua's. This is why he tells us the doctrine he spoke was not his. The words they heard were from God given to them through Yeshua and in John 17:14 He clarifies it all in his prayer to his god saying "I have given them YOUR (logos) word"... "they (the logos - word) are not of this world"......Then at the end he says "even as I am not of this world".... Logic tells us he is not ("THE WORD")...rather the one who brought it. He is the word (the direct representative - ambassador) of God so this means he speaks for God.

Hah, again, I have already addressed this.

Then that is where we differ. I believe an omnipotent can not be "given" power. That defies logic and it renders the word itself useless if you can give an omnipotent power.

The concept of Trinity was discerned in light of everything you've said, not in spite of it. Therefore, it is only your misunderstanding of the concept that leads you to contradictions and not anything inherit with the Trinity.

Because I reject it therefore I don't understand????? No.....It is because I understand it and seperate this concept from the teachings of Yeshua I reject it. Understanding the trinity is easy.

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

This lets me know that (*before*) Yeshua was sent here by God he had his own will. This is before he existed in the flesh so the concept of trinity does not apply. If he is God and he is one God then he would not have a separate will before being sent. Again, for one to be sent there must be a sender. One in purpose does not mean one in the same. He did not teach he and God were the same. He does not equal himself to God......

No, no. He tells us that he is one with God.

Where is it revealed they are one in the same? The word used denotes one in purpose. It was used by Yeshua in his prayer to his god that his followers would share that oneness.

John 17:21
That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in (us): that the world may believe that you have sent me.

17:22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as (we are one):

17:23 I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one;


It is used by Paul the same way. It is a oneness in purpose and unity. "United we stand devided we fall"....We are not one person but being united we have the same purpose.

Of course, you haven't addressed anything about John 1:1 here outside of your first paragraph. I consider the post I'm quoting to be one long-winded non-answer to my request of discussing what you think this ONE verse means.

I've given you my explanation of John 1:1. Yeshua is God's word because he is God's ambassasdor (his representative) bringing the word of God to the people. The problem is John's prologue is not enough. The whole book reveals more as to what the word is. The word wasn't simply a man but a man who was sent by God to represent God and charged with given those he was sent to the word of God. You must go beyond John to get clarification to John's statement. We discover that beyond that statement Yeshua reveals to us he was sent with a doctrine he was taught and commanded what he should say. He, in that prayer, says he has given them God's word.......Harping on that one verse (John 1:1) does little to truly understand who Yeshua was and what the "word" was. It is only until we read furthur do we get an understanding. John 1:1 is one of those verses in which people have devised a multitude of interpretations and the best explation of it is given by Yeshua himself.

I would love to see a quote where Yeshua said he was not God. Good luck with that.

You're right. He didn't say he was not. It is the actions of Yeshua that show us he wasn't. It is his very description and relationship to God of his existance before he was sent that lets us know he is not God. It is displayed in his actions. In Matt 12:18 he is revealed as a servant. In Acts 3:13 he is called (pais = servant). The KJV translates it as "son". I find that interesting because the greek word they commonly use for son is (huios = son). We also find him being called a servant in Acts 4:27.

Hah! On the contrary, that is what the Trinity is built on. Without the Trinity, you can have no possible explanation for this weird phrase, and the church fathers recognized this as well.

There is nothing weird about the phrase to me and I highly doubt I need some one to clarify what Yeshua was saying when it is right there in black and white.

It is very fitting that you agree that WE have no examples ON EARTH. That is why it is hard for us to comprehend.

I have no idea what you are talking about here and how this statement relates to what I just said.

I would love for you to actually answer my 3 illogical ramifications from John 1:1 using your theory and how you reconcile them (without using the fallacy of trying to disprove the Trinity with other verses as stated in my last post).

I have answered them. Maybe not to your liking but I have ansered them. If not what did I miss? And please believe me....You have not seem me on any sort of mission to "disprove" the trinity. You are trying to put word in my mouth.

Except for this verse? I am not even talking about the rest of scripture, and your answer to my question cannot just simply be "the rest of the Bible doesn't agree". Instead, you must have some reason as to why that is the case.

And yet the tilte of this thread is "Is the trinity in the BIBLE?"......If you noticed a large percentage of quotes used by me is from the NT. I made my comment because the nature of God as revealed in the OT is strikingly different than how it is interpreted in the NT. Again, John's thoughts are clarified by the statements made by Yeshua.

 

[Katzpur]

DreGod, I think you are fighting a losing battle here. These people are not only oblivious to what the Bible actually says and have no concept whatsoever of the inconsistencies in their theology. I would think that by now you would be getting awfully tired of being ignored. Anyway, good luck. If you're able to get through to one person, I say more power to you!

 

[kmkemp]

DreGod, I'm sorry if I've somehow misinterpreted you. I have a simple question then: if you believe that "the Word" is the "Word of God", then how do you explain the last clause that "the Word was God"? How can God's words also be God? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

DreGod, I'm sorry if I've somehow misinterpreted you. I have a simple question then: if you believe that "the Word" is the "Word of God", then how do you explain the last clause that "the Word was God"? How can God's words also be God? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

The very word that God speaks is God. I think I might have said that. I think it was one or two post ago. But if it is the word of God then what else would it be? It would be God.

Where Yeshua has made his distinction is that he tells us he was taught and he did what he saw God do. He was given the doctrine, commanded what to say, came not of his own will but by the will of God that sent him to give God's word to man. So the very word of God is God but Yeshua was the messenger who brought it.

John 3:34
For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

 

[Dirty Penguin]

DreGod, I think you are fighting a losing battle here. These people are not only oblivious to what the Bible actually says and have no concept whatsoever of the inconsistencies in their theology. I would think that by now you would be getting awfully tired of being ignored. Anyway, good luck. If you're able to get through to one person, I say more power to you!

Yea I know. I actually thought the thread had died but some one, I can't remember, started it back up.......

 

[kmkemp]

The very word that God speaks is God. I think I might have said that. I think it was one or two post ago. But if it is the word of God then what else would it be? It would be God.

Where Yeshua has made his distinction is that he tells us he was taught and he did what he saw God do. He was given the doctrine, commanded what to say, came not of his own will but by the will of God that sent him to give God's word to man. So the very word of God is God but Yeshua was the messenger who brought it.

John 3:34
For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

You still haven't told me how the WORD of God can BE God. My words are not me. I am me. Furthermore, if my words were me, then my words couldn't be WITH me. Again, this goes back to nothing on this earth being able to be something while simultaneously being with that SAME something. Of course, you admitted this as impossible several posts back, so I can hardly see how you are arguing it now.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You still haven't told me how the WORD of God can BE God. My words are not me. I am me.

The very word you speak is you. Your word came from you. The word is with you. Your word existed in your mind then it was formulated into speech and when it comes out of your mouth it is from you. Your thoughts, vocal pattern, and the very word that rolls off your tongue is unique.

The very word that God speaks is truth. There is nothing like it. Yeshua was charged with giving this truth (the word of God...God's doctrine) to the jews. John 3:34 is a prine example of this.

John 3:34
For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

This isn't some parable that needs countless interpretations in order to explain the meaning. It is simple and straight to the point. Yeshua was sent by God to speak the words of God. Trinitaians like to say that the spirit is God...How would one know?...well if I say the word of God is God then observe the second half of the quote above...."for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit".....It is the spirit of God that Yeshua was blessed (and annointed) with that enabled him to be able to speak the word of God.



So the word of God is not a man. It is God's truth and/or his commandments given to man. The word of God does not just reside with Yeshua. He was not the only one charged with delivering the word of God.

Jerimiah
1:1
The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin:

1:2
To whom the word of God came..........

Ezekiel 1:3
The word of God came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest..........

Micah 1:1
The word of God that came to Micah......


Haggai 1:1
In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of God by Haggai the prophet......

Furthermore, if my words were me, then my words couldn't be WITH me.

Sure they are. Where do they come from then? No one gives them to you thus you speak then. The words you speak are a mere representation of your thoughts. The brain, which is faster than any computer on the planet, formulates your thoughts and is capable of expressing those thoughts vocally. The words you speak are you....and from you.....

Yeshua was taught and given a doctrine and he was commanded what he should say to them. In Yeshua's case you may have heard him speak but the doctrine he spoke was the word of God.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Compare what he just said in John 6:38 to John 3:34. The word of God is manifest (brought forth) by the spirit of God that Yeshua was blessed with. And how do we know that the word is life.....Well we skip forward to more clarification from Yeshua as to God's commandment (word) being life ever lasting...

John 12:50
And I (Yeshua) know that his (God's) commandment (Logos - Word) is life everlasting: whatsoever I (Yeshua) speak therefore, even as the Father (God) said unto me (Yeshua), so I (Yeshua) speak.

Again, this goes back to nothing on this earth being able to be something while simultaneously being with that SAME something.

Again, I'm not sure what you are getting at. My argument (for lack of a better word) is the same as what you are saying. I'm saying it from a spiritual sense. Yeshua, while in heaven, and before coming here was not God because before coming here he says he has his own will. If God is one then there would be no reason for Yeshua to have seperated himself from God while in heaven and having his own will. That is illogical (if God is one).

 

[kmkemp]

I don't know how else to express it. If my words are me, then they cannot be with me simultaneously. It is an impossibility. I don't see how you can possibly think that my words are me. No where has anyone ever claimed that there words were actually them. It seems that you are only willing to make this exception to reconcile with your beliefs instead of formulating your belief on an obvious truth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know how else to express it. If my words are me, then they cannot be with me simultaneously. It is an impossibility. I don't see how you can possibly think that my words are me. No where has anyone ever claimed that there words were actually them. It seems that you are only willing to make this exception to reconcile with your beliefs instead of formulating your belief on an obvious truth.

Again, we just have a difference of how we see it. It's no biggy. You see Yeshua as the "Word"....You believet that Yeshua is the word spoken of and When I read furthur it is revealed that the word is not a man rather the truth, the commasndment, the logos that Yeshua says his god taught him and commanded him to speak.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know how else to express it. If my words are me, then they cannot be with me simultaneously. It is an impossibility. I don't see how you can possibly think that my words are me. No where has anyone ever claimed that there words were actually them. It seems that you are only willing to make this exception to reconcile with your beliefs instead of formulating your belief on an obvious truth.

Again, we just have a difference of how we see it. It's no biggy. You see Yeshua as the "Word"....You believet that Yeshua is the word spoken of and When I read furthur it is revealed that the word is not a man rather the truth, the commasndment, the logos that Yeshua says his god taught him and commanded him to speak.

This verse is one that some christians like to pass off as being a prophecy about Yeshua. *IF* it is then look at how God reveals the word...

Deuteronomy 18:18
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

If this is not talking about Yeshua then fine. The criteria of a true prophet of God's is defined by the verses that follw that one.

But, does Yeshua fit the rule here? I'd say yes. Is this talking about him....I don't think that it is given the time frame and the things that were going on at the time. But does God actually give his word to Yeshua to give to man in this manner? Well observe for yourself.......

John 3:34
For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 7:16
Yeshua answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.

John 8:28
............I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:38
............I speak that which I have seen (with) my Father:

Joh 12:49
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

John 17:14
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them (God's word) because they (God's word - not Yeshua or Yeshua's word) are not of the world, even as I (Yeshua) am not of the world.

So I say Yeshua is not God nor part of a trinity. John 6:38 renders the trinity void due to the fact that Yeshua and God had seperate wills. This is before Yeshua was made flesh. If in heaven dual wills existed then God is not one. If anyone is God in the flesh it should have been the prohphet Haggai. But ofcourse we know that Haggai is not God incarnate....Right? The way the beginning of the book of Haggai reads is as though God is in the flesh, speaking through Haggai.....Why has no one considered this to be God in the flesh? I could post the verses for you but go and read the beginning of Haggai and tell me why it appears God is talking by way of Haggai and we have not considered Haggai to be God incarnate. It is what I have been saying all along. Yeshua spoke for God but was not God.

 

[Francine]

The very word you speak is you. Your word came from you. The word is with you.

The word you speak is you AND the person who hears the word. If the person doesn't understand your words, then you are just making futile noises. Yet no one identifies futile noises as their self.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The word you speak is you AND the person who hears the word. If the person doesn't understand your words, then you are just making futile noises. Yet no one identifies futile noises as their self.

I agree to a point. But just because others can't understand your word (you) does not mean that the words you speak cease to be you.

Welcome to the forum. I want to give you frubals.....

 

[Muffled]

The very word that God speaks is God. I think I might have said that. I think it was one or two post ago. But if it is the word of God then what else would it be? It would be God.

Where Yeshua has made his distinction is that he tells us he was taught and he did what he saw God do. He was given the doctrine, commanded what to say, came not of his own will but by the will of God that sent him to give God's word to man. So the very word of God is God but Yeshua was the messenger who brought it.

John 3:34
Forhe whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

The scripture doesn't support this view in John 1. It views Jesus as God as the following verses show:

John 1:9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The scripture doesn't support this view in John 1. It views Jesus as God as the following verses show:

John 1:9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

First the scriptures do not show Yeshua to be God.

Second, John's opinion here as to what he thought about Yeshua does not void what I said. Was Yeshua God's word? Yes he was. He was God's mouthpiece. He spoke for God. But so did Haggai The Prophet who appeared as though God was speaking through him. How do we know Yeshua spoke for his god? Well, observe....

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

I would like to see your response to this. My thoughts on this is that Yeshua, before coming here, Yeshua had his own will (I mean that is what it says) and his god was the one who sent him. In order to be sent there must be a sender.

John 3:34
For he (Yeshua) whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he (GOD) gives the Spirit;

Well he has been saying all along he was sent by his sender, his god and here we see he speaks for God. (God's ambassador if you will)....


John 7:16
Yeshua answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.

If he is God then whoes doctrine?.....Well, who elses?...Certainly not his own....but rather his god's doctrine....What's another definition of doctrine? (logos). Yep you guessed it....

John 8:28
............I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

If he is God then who taught this omniscient being? Well, considering other verses show he was not omniscient then it is exactly how he puts it....His god taught him.

John 8:38
............I speak that which I have seen (with) my Father:

Whatever he saw, he saw while he was WITH his god. In order for him to have been with, seen with, taught by, commanded by, sent by....had his own will... he must have been a distinct and separate being......

John 12:49
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

Well this refers right back to 3:34. His god gave him a command what he should speak. If he is God how can he be commanded. If he can be commanded then what is he? You guessed it...NOT God.....

John 17:14
I have given them your word; and the world has hated them (God's word) because they (God's word - not Yeshua or Yeshua's word) are not of the world, even as I (Yeshua) am not of the world.

The logos gave the logos the logos?????:sarcastic

Hardly. The student, servant brings the logos that his god has given (tasked) him. The people hated the what? Yep you guessed it....Logos (God's doctrine Yeshua brought)...because what was not of this word?......The logos.... As who was not of this world?...Yep Yeshua.......

It's remarkable how he distinguishes himself from logos in that verse.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Sounds similar to Gen 1:2,3

Compare what he just said in John 6:63 to John 3:34. The word of God is manifest (brought forth) by the spirit of his god that Yeshua was blessed with. And how do we know that the word is life.....Well we skip forward to more clarification from Yeshua as to his god's commandment (word) being life ever lasting...

John 12:50
And I (Yeshua) know that his (God's) commandment (Logos - Word) is life everlasting: whatsoever I (Yeshua) speak therefore, even as the Father (God) said unto me (Yeshua), so I (Yeshua) speak.

 

[alamxudos]

The notion of the trinity has validity but is often taken out of context. The triune attributes of the creator are not the Elohim. It is the Elohim that translates literally into the plurality of God. The trinity was accepted by Rome because it was more liken to their polytheistic views. Thus lifting Paul's gospel over Barnnabas', who rejected Paul along with other actual disciples of Christ.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The notion of the trinity has validity but is often taken out of context. The triune attributes of the creator are not the Elohim. It is the Elohim that translates literally into the plurality of God. The trinity was accepted by Rome because it was more liken to their polytheistic views. Thus lifting Paul's gospel over Barnnabas', who rejected Paul along with other actual disciples of Christ.

Welcome to the forum......And for your response....And Yes..I liked it...I will give you frubals....

 

[alamxudos]

Truth is but one. I stand for love, truth, peace, freedom and justice.

 

[Muffled]

The notion of the trinity has validity but is often taken out of context. The triune attributes of the creator are not the Elohim. It is the Elohim that translates literally into the plurality of God. The trinity was accepted by Rome because it was more liken to their polytheistic views. Thus lifting Paul's gospel over Barnnabas', who rejected Paul along with other actual disciples of Christ.

The Trimity is listed in Matthew and there is no evidence that he ever went to Rome.

Since Paul indicates in Athens that he is not impressed by Greek deities why would you ever construe him as being impressed by Roman deities?