Religious bigots and your understanding

[The_Watchers_2017]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.

this is the BEGINNING:
the WORD
GOD

is GOD 2 Persons here since WORD is ONE?
Does GOD represent both Father - SPIRIT here?

if this is the Beginning, where's the Father and Spirit listed at here?

does the sole single term of GOD here mean Father and Spirit?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

or, is John, just establishing that the WORD, is GOD, here?

 

[Nehemiah6]

so, why is there ONLY ONE PERSON OF GOD IF ALL OF HEAVEN IS HERE? SHOULDN"T THERE BE THREE PERSONS?

The one who sits upon the throne is God the Father.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

The one who sits upon the throne is God the Father.

I agree, but the TERM for LORD here, is same one pre-incarnate Jesus used to describe Himself to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
and oddly enough, to Moses, describes Himself as YHWH or LORD.

So, one can say it can be the Father or the WORD here:

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

the WORD was not the SON in the Old Testament.
the SON became when the WORD came in FLESH.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

had we not needed a Sacrifice and God come in the form of FLESH, the WORD, would never be the SON.
the WORD, would just remain Elohim, LORD, YHWH, MOST HIGH GOD, Yahweh.
but we SINNED, so there must be a Sacrifice.

 

[Fundaamental]

had we not needed a Sacrifice and God come in the form of FLESH, the WORD, would never be the SON.
the WORD, would just remain Elohim, LORD, YHWH, MOST HIGH GOD, Yahweh.
but we SINNED, so there must be a Sacrifice.

Your reasoning for the last 6 posts seems to be all over the place, should it be this complicated,

Complications come from not truly understanding the devine nature of the trinity.

If scriptures say it's the father who sits on the throne then that's who it is.

If scripture says the lord can mean father or son, then that's what it means.

If we then go saying the word lord must have ment Jesus in the old t, then you fall into the trap of leaning on your own understanding.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So, one can say it can be the Father or the WORD here:

That would not be correct. The Father is YHWH and the Son is also YHWH. The Father is called "the Ancient of Days" in Daniel 7 and He is the one who sits upon the throne. The Son is called "one like the Son of Man" in the same scene, and He is brought before the Ancient of Days. So the Father is DEFINITELY NOT the Word. It is the Son who is the Word as well as the Son of Man. And we are always presented with the Father on the throne. See Revelation.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

That would not be correct. The Father is YHWH and the Son is also YHWH. The Father is called "the Ancient of Days" in Daniel 7 and He is the one who sits upon the throne. The Son is called "one like the Son of Man" in the same scene, and He is brought before the Ancient of Days. So the Father is DEFINITELY NOT the Word. It is the Son who is the Word as well as the Son of Man. And we are always presented with the Father on the throne. See Revelation.

ever read Ezekiel and Revelation?

God is Spirit (John 4)
But the Ancient of Days is a Person with a literal Body.

No one has ever seen the Father.

so are you claiming Ezekiel and John saw the Father, that no one else has ever seen?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

that JESUS SAID...NO ONE has ever SEEN but Himself!!

clearly, Ancient of Days can be seen, not the Father!

 

[Nehemiah6]

so are you claiming Ezekiel and John saw the Father, that no one else has ever seen?

It is not I who is claiming anything but it is Scripture itself that says BOTH things. On one hand God the Father is indeed a Spirit. On the other hand God the Father sitting upon His throne actually has a physical body. Now you can simply believe that both things are true, or you can reject Scripture. We are not required to explain these things, only believe that they are true. Now notice what it says in Revelation 5:1:And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. Here God has a right hand and Christ takes the scroll (book) out of His right hand: And he [Christ] came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

Now are you going to dispute this or simply believe it?

 

[Nehemiah6]

clearly, Ancient of Days can be seen, not the Father!

The Ancient of Days is the Father so why don't you adjust your thinking to Scripture?

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I believe Jesus when He said no one has ever seen the Father.

If you think Jesus can't remember all the examples of God on the Throne when He said this you are stretching to fit your Doctrine

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

The Father Dwelling inside Jesus doing the talking and works said NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE FATHER!

THAT IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED.

 

[Franc254]

That's what trinity is now, but understanding what the trinity was in the begining, is something I can't understand.

To be honest when you think about it even if the trinity was spiritual word that hadn't fully manifested until later,
Maybe you could still call it the trinity back then in the beginning one verse springs to mind.

which is this
Genesis 11.7

Come, let’s go down and
confuse the people with different languages. Then they won’t be able to understand each other.”

who is us in this passage ?.

it looks like distinct persons of the trinity to me.

Alas man has become like one of us knowing good and evil....if it's the trinity then the Angels and heavenly host don't know anything good or evil....or it's just the trinity and humans

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Why does reading this thread bring to mind Franz Kafka?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Why does reading this thread bring to mind Franz Kafka?

Here is what Kafkaesque denotes: extremely unpleasant, frightening, and confusing, and similar to situations described in the novels of Franz Kafka. Is that what you see here?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Here is what Kafkaesque denotes: extremely unpleasant, frightening, and confusing, and similar to situations described in the novels of Franz Kafka. Is that what you see here?

No, not exactly. Unpleasant sure enough, maybe the pointless round and round with nonresolution. The seemingly no order of thought. Where one reply to another is sometimes a nonsequitor and others; just as it appears to be a cohearant response suddenly ends up far off the rails, in what seems to be an intentional conflation of the others intent. While some seem to coverse rationally while dis/agreeing yet failing to understand the other. But not entirely, this is all mingled in to an almost normal discussion. I wonder if all speak the same language or if it is many dialects that sounds the same while many of the words mean something different?
Like an ever growing web of complexity, but no purpose or meaning.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

No, not exactly. Unpleasant sure enough, maybe the pointless round and round with nonresolution. The seemingly no order of thought. Where one reply to another is sometimes a nonsequitor and others; just as it appears to be a cohearant response suddenly ends up far off the rails, in what seems to be an intentional conflation of the others intent. While some seem to coverse rationally while dis/agreeing yet failing to understand the other. But not entirely, this is all mingled in to an almost normal discussion. I wonder if all speak the same language or if it is many dialects that sounds the same while many of the words mean something different?
Like an ever growing web of complexity, but no purpose or meaning.

basically, all that you have said, gives light to interpretation. from those with initial understanding, to others with more knowledge. then add church doctrine, and now you've livened things up. but soon, you are limited by those who choose to present their views against yours. you are limited to their understanding and reasoning skills. so, just when you're ready to lower the boom, you have to back off because no one will grasp it anyway. so, it dwindles down to repeating yourself. and you're just waiting for others to catch up.

 

[Nehemiah6]

No, not exactly. Unpleasant sure enough, maybe the pointless round and round with nonresolution.

Unfortunately this is true in many threads. A time comes when the discussion has been exhausted, and everyone should move on. Of course, don't look for resolutions.