The Trinity Discussion

trofimus · Aug 16, 2017

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.

Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria..."

Ignatius to Ephesians, 110 AD

jaybird88 · Aug 16, 2017

trofimus said:

the scriptures say Jesus died. it makes no mention of these special conditions that one part of Him died and another part continued to live. this is also contradicting scripture.

jaybird88 · Aug 16, 2017

valiant said:

but according to you Jesus was G-D, Jesus died, but G-D continued living. so one died, one did not, and both are one and the same. . . .makes no sense at all. how in the world do you not see that??

valiant · Aug 16, 2017

jaybird88 said:

The Scripture states that His body would be in the grave for three days but that He would be conscious in paradise (Luke 23.42).
Seems pretty clear to me.

Bronson · Aug 16, 2017

valiant said:

Okay! In John 1:1, the scripture that trinity believers cling to like a kid to its mother, it starts "in the beginning...." Please explain what that beginning is the beginning of. It can't be the beginning of God as He has no beginning, so???????

Bronson · Aug 16, 2017

valiant said:

Your clearness is very cloudy I am afraid. Jesus was telling the thief that he would be with him in Paradise. The thief mistakenly thought he would be in the heavenly Kingdom with Jesus, which did not happen to come about until Jesus was resurrected and lifted up to the heavenly realm. You need to know more about the Bible than just a few scriptures here and there. Did you know that Eden mans Paradise, and this is what Jesus was promising the thief, he would be in the new Paradise earth that God had promised to restore.

You are saying that Jesus didn't really die but just slipped into some other place, like many believe that a "soul" does, and yet the Bible states that He died for the sins of all men.

Magenta · Aug 16, 2017

Bronson said:

At the time creation began... it was started by God saying, "Let there be..."

An infinite, self existing God has no beginning.

MattforJesus · Aug 16, 2017

Bronson said:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In the beginning is speaking of the creation of the world,and all things created.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the plan of God to come in the future in flesh,and that plan was already with God before He laid down the foundation of the world,and that plan was God revealing Himself in a visible manifestation.
Joh 1:2 That plan was already with God before He laid down the foundation of the world.
Joh 1:3 All things were created with the plan of God to come in the future in flesh,and without that plan of God coming in the future in flesh,God would of not created anything that He created.

The whole creation hinges on Jesus Christ.

Joh 1:14 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.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Rev 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

Jesus is God revealing a visible manifestation of Himself,and will be God's visible relationship to the saints forever,for the throne in heaven is the throne of both God and the Lamb,God in the glorified body of the man Christ Jesus.

The word of God,the Holy Bible,is God revealing Himself to mankind by words written in a book.

The Word of God,is God revealing Himself personally by a visible manifestation.

John 1:1 does not prove a trinity,but that God manifest Himself in flesh,which means Jesus is the fulness of the Godhead bodily,and He has the Spirit without measure,and it pleased the Father that in Him all fulness should dwell,and the Spirit in Christ is still connected to the omnipresent Spirit of God,for God cannot be separated.

The Bible says that it will be God Himself that will come to save Israel,from their sins,and will heal them of their infirmities,and He is God manifest in flesh,the Almighty,and Jesus called God,Lord,but said that He is Lord and Master,which can only be referred to God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Jesus is not a created god,for there was no God formed before God,and there was no God formed after Him,and there is no such thing as a created god,for there is no deity but God,and all things created are of the physical world.

1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Jesus is the invisible God,who showed a visible manifestation of Himself.

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

He will be from everlasting,which means have no beginning.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

Jesus has a beginning according to His humanity,but not a beginning according to His deity as God.

bluto · Aug 16, 2017

Bronson said:

Here bronson, let me explain it to you. And of course it can't be the beginning of God because God has no beginning and He is eternal. So then what is the Apostle John saying at John 1:1? "beginning. The definite article has been supplies. The actual Greek is en-arche- which literally reads, "in beginning." The "Word of God" thus was there before the credation of the space-mass-time and universe.

In other words (and I know your not going to believe this) but John's "beginning," even atecedes or is before the Genesis "beginning," extending without an initial beginning into eternity past. That is to say before even time was created. This is backed up by John 17:24, where Jesus, in His humanity, acknowledged that He was with the Father, and loved by the Father, "before the foundation of the world."

And if you remember bronson, I explained to you about Revelation 3:14, (in fact I even ask you to check the Greek out but of course you did not). Jesus is speaking in the verse and He says, "The Amen the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." You JW's latch on to this verse and say, "See, Jesus Christ is a created being."

What you guys don't do is to check out the Greek and when you do you will discover that the Greek word for "beginning" is "arche." The same word "arche" is used at John 1:1. We get our English word from the word "arche" architect. What does an "archetect" do bronson? He draws up the plans and he is the "orgin" what is going to be made or in this case created.

This also means that the "Word" who is identified at John 1:1 as being with God (His Father) and is God just like His Father by nature. So to wrap all of this up bronson, look at it this way? The main thought in Genesis 1:1 is on "WHAT HAPPENED" in the beginning, and at John 1:1 the emphasis is on "WHO EXISTED BEFORE THE BEGINNING."

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Magenta · Aug 16, 2017

bluto said:

This is interesting, thank you

I was taken to task for calling God the great architect because of some of the people that also use that term, but I had already researched it and found nothing wrong with using it, especially when used in conjunction with other descriptors

MattforJesus · Aug 16, 2017

bluto said:

Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God in this fashion.

God calls things that have not happened yet,as though they already happened,for if it is a plan of God to happen in the future,it is the same as if it happened in the beginning,for it will surely come to pass with no hindrance.

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

The prophets blood shed from the foundation of the world.

All the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The Father loved the Son from the foundation of the world,but Jesus was speaking as a man,because He said He would share the same glory He had in the beginning with the Father,and they would behold His glory,and that is the man Christ Jesus obtaining a glorified body,and eternal life,and for the saints to receive the same,as they behold Jesus sitting on the throne in heaven,which did not happen at the beginning,but was considered as happening at the beginning,and Jesus could not share glory if He was referring to His deity,for God gives His glory to no person.

The man Christ Jesus was considered in tbe beginning before He was born.

So the man Christ Jesus can exist in the beginning,before He is born,because God calls things that have not happened yet,as though they already happened,so even if the prophets blood was slain before the man Christ Jesus was born,He can still be considered before them.

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

All things were made with the plan of God to come in the future in flesh,as Jesus,and without that plan of God coming in the future in flesh,God would of not created anything that He created.

So all creation hinges on Jesus Christ.He is the reason that God created all that He created,who is God manifest in flesh.

So Jesus Christ was the plan,and then creation was created,so He is the beginning of creation,even though the man Christ was not born until the future,for all the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

MattforJesus · Aug 16, 2017

jaybird88 said:

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1Jn 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh,and the man Christ Jesus the personal human body of God,and it was God's humanity that died.

Bronson · Aug 16, 2017

MattforJesus said:

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Doesn't that tell you exactly what is the truth? Before God there was no "GOD" formed nor after Hhim as well, but we know that there are many gods, Satan is a god, the Bible calls him the god of the world.

Of course, the KJV clouded the issue by removing all the references to Jehovah and replaced the Holy name of God with Lord. Jesus was called Lord, Master and Rabbi.

I don’t know why people fight with the word Jehovah, especially when you h think that if you called out Jesus in the days of Christ, no one would know who you were talking about. Jesus may have been called Yesua or Yeshoshua, but no one has a problem with calling him Jesus.

While we are checking the Greek language, check this out: From Jw,org.

Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

00:00
03:25

THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.

You must also understand that Jesus was not immortal until his resurrection and entry to his Heavenly Kingdom, which was began with this event. Not being immortal would make a big error if he was declared as God, don't you think? If he was immortal, he would not have been able to die and the whole Ransom Sacrifice would be a lie.

Bronson · Aug 16, 2017

Bronson said:

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Doesn't that tell you exactly what is the truth? Before God there was no "GOD" formed nor after Hhim as well, but we know that there are many gods, Satan is a god, the Bible calls him the god of the world.

Of course, the KJV clouded the issue by removing all the references to Jehovah and replaced the Holy name of God with Lord. Jesus was called Lord, Master and Rabbi.

I don’t know why people fight with the word Jehovah, especially when you h think that if you called out Jesus in the days of Christ, no one would know who you were talking about. Jesus may have been called Yesua or Yeshoshua, but no one has a problem with calling him Jesus.

While we are checking the Greek language, check this out: From Jw,org.

Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

00:00
03:25

THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.

You must also understand that Jesus was not immortal until his resurrection and entry to his Heavenly Kingdom, which was began with this event. Not being immortal would make a big error if he was declared as God, don't you think? If he was immortal, he would not have been able to die and the whole Ransom Sacrifice would be a lie.

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Your Quote

Twisting the scriptures to suit, it reads: "All things were made through him...."

Satan has drilled this trinity thing, a pagan off shoot, into the minds of many, almost all the religions of Christendom teach the trinity, it is so wrong to relegate Jehovah to a third of His almighty position as the one and only GOD of all things.

fredoheaven · Aug 17, 2017

MattforJesus said:

Thank you as you made mention of this and I thinks it’s a high time to understand what ‘ Godhead’ means. The word ‘Godhead’ means deity or trinity. It was used in the bible to signify Christ is God even during his incarnation. God dwells with mankind. The mystery of Godliness is that “God was manifested in the flesh” and exactly in Colossians 2:9 9 says “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Here are some English Dictionaries and other writers to say about Godhead

John Kersey the younger, A New English Dictionary (1702)

The Holy Trinity, i. e. the distinction of three Persons in the Godhead, viz. Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, which are one and the same in essence and substance, I John 5. 7.

John Florio, Queen Anna's New World of Words (1611)
E'li, an Hebrew word, that is, My God or else My godhead.

Randle Cotgrave, A Dictionary of the French and English Tongues (1611)
Deité: f. The deitie, or godhead.

Edmund Coote, The English School-master (1596)
deitie godhead.

trofimus · Aug 17, 2017

jaybird88 said:

Scripture says clearly that in death its body what stops functioning, not our spirit.

Jesus said "Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise". Body was in a grave, spirit was in a paradise.

Also, Jesus is the Son, not the Father. So your "problem" does not make any sense, you try to push that God died. No, Father did not die, Holy Spirit did not die. Only Son died.

trofimus · Aug 17, 2017

Bronson said:

In the beginning of creation, before all ages, there was already the Logos etc.

fredoheaven · Aug 17, 2017

Bronson said:

Umm, I believe Jesus is Jehovah! It's not the really the KJV clouded the issue. It is what you think that clouded the issue.
Here is a good article on John 1:1 with the link For an Answer: Christian Apologetics - Scholars & Coptic John

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]

John 1:1c in the Sahidic Coptic TranslationWhat the Scholars Really Said Robert Hommel

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]Several Jehovah's Witness apologists have claimed that the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1 fully supports the rendering of the New World Translation (NWT): "and the Word was a god."In defense of these claims, one Witness apologist alludes to emails that he has exchanged with several Coptic scholars:

"a god was the Word" or "the Word was a god."

That is the *literal* translation of Coptic John 1:1c, as agreed upon by noted Coptic grammarians Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, as well as Greek-Coptic scholar Jason BeDuhn and Coptic researcher J. Warren Wells of the Sahidica Project.

But this apologist is not telling the whole story about what these scholars have written. Let's let them speak for themselves:
Bentley Layon
"The indef. article is part of the Coptic syntactic pattern. This pattern predicates either a quality (we'd omit the English article in English: "is divine") or an entity ("is a god"); the reader decides which reading to give it. The Coptic pattern does NOT predicate equivalence with the proper name "God"; in Coptic, God is always without exception supplied with the def. article. Occurrence of an anarthrous noun in this pattern would be odd."[SUP]1[/SUP]
"Don't worry about the indefinite article of John 1.1 in Coptic; it might mean was a god, was divine, was an instance of 'god', was one god (not two, three, etc.). The range of meanings of the Coptic indef. article does not map nicely onto English usage, nor Greek. Once you learn Coptic you will know all of this."[SUP]2[/SUP]
Ariel Shisha-Halevy
"In Coptic, "ounoute" can mean "a god" or "one with divine nature". In the passage you refer to, I would suggest that the latter interpretation is best, qualifying "the Word" as "divine" or "godly". This is not the case in the original Greek, for in this Greek you have no indefinite article, and "theos" does not mean "godly".[SUP]3[/SUP]

Jason BeDuhn
I have not contacted Dr. BeDuhn on this matter, nor am I aware of anyone else who has (other than the Witness, quoted above). Given BeDuhn's beliefs about the NWT in general, and specifically about John 1:1 (see here), I would expect him to agree that a "literal" translation of the Coptic is "a god," but that it is also possible to understand "god" with the Coptic indefinite article to mean "divine." It should be noted that BeDuhn has argued here that there is no meaningful semantic difference between "a god" and "divine." Interested readers can determine for themselves whether BeDuhn makes his case or not.

J. Warren Wells
"To answer your questions: On my website I state "Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that has the indefinite article; and the only language with the indefinite article that was produced during the Koine Greek period. "The is of interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly translated "the word was with God and the word was a God" using the Coptic indefinite article; with some variation in word order. "In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus Bodmer III, the text of which was partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser) the first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out." So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. In a similar way translations of the Greek "pneuma ho theos" (spirit the god") at John 4:24 usually say either "God is spirit" or "God is a spirit" where both give the same sense of "what" God is, not who he is. Here the Sahidic says literally "a spirit is the God" (P.Palau Rib 183) as does the Proto-Bohairic (Bodmer III). To me, the sense of the passage in John 1 is likewise a description of what the Logos was in relation to God. A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."[SUP]4[/SUP]

Conclusion
The logical fallacy known as "Suppressed Evidence" or "Stacking the Deck" may be defined as follows:

When presenting a case, omitting important evidence that would hurt one's own case.[SUP]5[/SUP]

Stating that Coptic grammarians and scholars "agree" that "the Word was a god" is the "literal" translation of John 1:1c in the Sahidic NT is simply not telling the entire story. Witness apologists making such claims are guilty of stacking the deck. Taking their full comments into consideration, the scholars in question (with the possible exception of Jason BeDuhn) "agree" that the indefinite article in the Sahidic dialect is not the equivalent of either the English indefinite article, or the Greek noun without the article. It can convey a range of meanings, and in the case of John 1:1c, probably signifies the nature or quality of the Logos, not his membership in a class of secondary 'gods.' [SUP]6[/SUP]
It is also significant that several scholars (Layton, Choat, and P.J. Williams) have said that an article is a grammatical requirement of a phrase like John 1:1c. As Williams explains:

We can observe how Coptic avoids nouns without articles. In consequence in such a predication you either add the definite article ‘the god is the love’ (1 John 4:8; PNOUTE PE TAGAPH) or the indefinite as in John 1:1.[SUP]7[/SUP]

Thus, the Sahidic translators were faced with having to use either the definite article - which would have predicated the proper name "God" to the Logos (and possibly been conducive to some form of Modalism) - or the indefinite article, which predicates either class membership or the nature of God to the Logos. The anarthrous construction, apparently, was not an option.
Greek grammarians have classified nouns that denote nature or quality as "qualitative nouns," and many understand theos in John 1:1c to be a qualitative noun. P.B. Harner suggests "the Word had the same nature as God" as perhaps the most accurate way to render the meaning of qualitative theos in this verse into English (see the extended discussion, here). If the Sahidic noute ("G/god") in John 1:1c refers to the nature of the Logos, it provides evidence that translators working as early as the 3rd Century A.D. understood theos in John 1:1c to have a qualitative meaning; that is, that the Logos was with God, and shared His nature.
I have written further on the Sahidic Coptic translation and its use by Witness apologists here.

Notes
1. Bentley Layton to Robert Keay, quoted in private email from Robert Keay to Robert Hommel 1/12/2006.
2. Bentley Layton to Andrew, posted here: The Opera blog January 10, 2007.
3. Ariel Shisha-Halevy to Andrew, posted here: The Opera blog January 10, 2007.
4. J. Warren Wells to Andrew, posted here: The Opera blog January 10, 2007.
5. From the online Encyclopedia of Fallacies, http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Suppressed_Evidence
6. Shisha-Halevy actually questions whether the Sahidic translation correctly translates the Greek. His suspicions are shared by Malcolm Choat, lecturer in Coptic Studies, MacQuarie University:

For my part, I think both 'a god' and the 'qualitative' idea are special pleading; yes, there is an indefinite article there; but Greek doesn't have an indefinite article, and Coptic grammatically requires one for a construction like this; but to translate 'a god' or 'the word was divine' seems out of kilter with what the Greek looks to me to be saying (Malcolm Choat to Andrew, quoted here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JohnOneOne, post #3869, Oct 11, 2006.

7. P.J. Williams to Robert Hommel, Feb 12, 2007.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Bronson · Aug 17, 2017

trofimus said:

But only one logos. Jesus the image of his invisible Father could have been with God for billions of years before the heavens and earth were started to be created, no one knows. The Hell theory and the trinity theory try to destroy that close fatherly/son relationship that God and Jesus had with each other. The Hell fire issue suggests that through Jesus God created this place.

I count these theories with Mary entering heaven in flesh and blood form, which is completely in contradiction of scripture. But the Catholic Church has decided that where scripture and tradition conflict that tradition should be accepted. so too, is the idiocy of Hades, Hell and the trinity.

trofimus · Aug 17, 2017

Bronson said:

Before the creation, there was no time.

Trinity is a biblical view on God and three persons in Him - Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

They do not just have a "close relationship", they are so unified that they are one. Like 6 independent squares in 2D is one unified cube in 3D

The Trinity Discussion

Senior Member

jaybird88

Guest

jaybird88

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member