So many stupid posts about denying the trinity - We can affirm it

[oldhermit]

John 1 is looked like a clear cut trinity section, but its not at all.

You all look at it as God=word
word=Jesus
God=Jesus.

You don't even question what the word "word" means. The word for "word" in greek is logos. Its Gods thoughts or his plan. Basically, although I don't think God has a mind like ours at all, its basically saying his mind. What he thinks and such. Jesus is the word manifested in the flesh. I agree with you on that, that Jesus is God's plan and thoughts manifested in the flesh because he perfectly fulfilled the will of the father. That does not make Jesus God, simply that he acted exactly how God wants everyone to act.

You clearly do not understand the Greek syntax nor the theology of John 1

 

[danschance]

You don't even question what the word "word" means. The word for "word" in greek is logos. Its Gods thoughts or his plan. Basically, although I don't think God has a mind like ours at all, its basically saying his mind. What he thinks and such. Jesus is the word manifested in the flesh. I agree with you on that, that Jesus is God's plan and thoughts manifested in the flesh because he perfectly fulfilled the will of the father. That does not make Jesus God, simply that he acted exactly how God wants everyone to act.

Pure double speak...

John 1 defines the logos as being God. We do not need another explanation as john 1 is the final answer. Jesus is the logos and He is God.

 

[Josh321]

so the Son is his own father and the father is his own Son? it's not 3 Gods it's one God working in 3 administration by the same spirit, can the people who believe in the 3 God thing explain this scripture, we all know that the Father is Jesus father correct? and according to your beliefs the Holy ghost is a complete different person than the father, is that correct?

[h=3]Matthew 1:18[/h]King James Version (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


what[h=3]Matthew 1:18[/h]King James Version (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.



what[h=3]Matthew 1:18[/h]King James Version (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

what... i thought according to you the holy ghost is a different person than the father so how can the holy ghost be Jesus father, that would mean Jesus had 2 fathers...i want one of you go to israel and tell them anything about there is 3 Gods

 

[Josh321]

Jesus said I and the father are one, how are they one? from one spirit. Jesus prayed that this same thing may happen to us also that we become one as God, how do we become one with God? by his spirit. and something to consider people, God made us in his exact image, if he is 3 persons in 1 we would have to be also, but what are we? [h=3]1 Thessalonians 5:23[/h]King James Version (KJV)

23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

are we 3 PERSONS in one? if we have a spirit soul and body, would not God have a spirit soul and body also since he made us in his image, does that make him 3 persons in one?

 

[Josh321]

[h=3]1 Timothy 2:5[/h]King James Version (KJV)

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;



we have to understand that God was reconciling to the world to himself THROUGH Jesus Christ, his very spirit was in Christ Jesus

 

[thecreationtutor]

Hebrews 9:14 - How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The trinity's work in salvation - it's everything about God - the eternitality of the son, the holy spirit, and the father

If you can reject that teaching - that's a pretty much proof that you don't have salvation, your a goat trying to be a sheep

 

[tucksma]

Pure double speak...

John 1 defines the logos as being God. We do not need another explanation as john 1 is the final answer. Jesus is the logos and He is God.

Logos is a concept or a thought. God is his thoughts. Jesus is God's thoughts, his will, and everything God wants manifested in the flesh because of how Jesus acted. He acted perfectly with God's will. So he is God's logos in the flesh. That doesn't make him God, rather the perfect follower of God.

 

[oldhermit]

Logos is a concept or a thought. God is his thoughts. Jesus is God's thoughts, his will, and everything God wants manifested in the flesh because of how Jesus acted. He acted perfectly with God's will. So he is God's logos in the flesh. That doesn't make him God, rather the perfect follower of God.

Would you care to prove that from the grammatical structure of John 1?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Would you care to prove that from the grammatical structure of John 1?

It clearly says, '...and the Word was God'.

 

[oldhermit]

It clearly says, '...and the Word was God'.

I really get burned out with people attempting to marginalize the Logos of John 1. The Greek syntactical structure of the text simply will not support their definition of Logos. Here is why.

1. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean "the word was 'A' god." In other words, the Word was a lesser god than the father. The reason is that since both nouns contain the article, λογος is the subject, because it come first there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus its absence means something since even if we gave it the article, it would still be the predicate. Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article must therefore change the meaning of θεος. The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would not change the word's grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father. Furthermore, if it does not have an article, then the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “de-emphasized”) and the λογος would then be less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" can only mean "the Word was 'a' god." John did NOT use this construction.

2. If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the word was THE God." That is, the word was exactly the same person as the Father. Meaning there is only ONE person, not two and would then stand as a solid case against the idea of a trinity. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same God and NOT separate individuals. This would support the case for monotheism. The construction of "και ο λογος ην θεος" then would demand that there is one God who simply appears at times in different forms. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific. In other words, the λογος would then be exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically locked into occurring after λογος. If it moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It must appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." John did NOT use this construction.

3. By writing it: και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical things.
a. He leaves the article off of θεος indicating that the Word is not the same individual as the father.
b. He places θεος to the front of the clause, giving extra emphasis to that word. By doing that, he makes it clear by the increase in emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "lesser god," it leaves us only one choice as to what it can mean: Not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much God as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is not the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does not mean "lesser". By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: "The Word was God!" Now, we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is with a specific being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely equal with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles, John shown us that the Word is not the same individual as "The God" of the second clause.

 

[mlssufan01]

How about the fact that Immanuel means "God with us." God, in the form of Jesus Christ (Mt 1:23)
Forunto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the governmentwill be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful,Counselor, MightyGod,Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)
“Tothose who have obtained like precious faith with us by therighteousness of our Godand Savior Jesus Christ” (2Peter 1:1)
Although controversial, Jn 8:58, Jesus refers to himself as "I AM." This was considered blasphemy, as his accusers tried to kill him for the reason of claiming to be God; some say because He said He was the Messiah, which means anointed one.
Jn 10:30-33, "I and the Father are One
If you believe Jn 14:6-7 but do not believe in the Trinity, then you are practicing heresy and idolatry, as someone is claiming you have to go through Him in order to access the Father, thus making him a 2nd God.
Jn 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus "God"
So its possible 1 Jn 5:7 was added, but my guess is because it needed to be worded that way to be in line with the rest of Scripture, it's one thing to have one mistake in one translated version, it's quite another to mess it up over the entire Bible; my verse was only one originally, but it is pretty clear to me that the concept of the Trinity exists, it may not necessarily be referred to as the Trinity, but it is very clear that Jesus is God, and if he is not part of three in one, then all the Old Testament verses about God being "The One True God" fall apart.

 

[secularhermit]

Though I would not use an insulting adjective, I dared to bring this link: Questions on Doctrine: a creedal or a preponderant 'faith'?