The Trinity.
- Thread starter Aussie52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Since that passage goes all the way back to the 4th century in the Latin Vulgate, that is just more baloney from the naysayers. Why are they never happy with the truth? Here's what is found in the Geneva Bible (1599): For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.
-
1
- Show all
It's not a baseless assumption. Since the KJV and NKJV are basically the only translations that have the JohAnnie Are Ya Okayne Comma, it's not much of a stretch to conclude that when you say "It's part of the Bible" you mean the KJV.
Yes, I'm aware there may be a few others. But these, like the KJV, are based on the TR; or the Vulgate.
Yes, I'm aware there may be a few others. But these, like the KJV, are based on the TR; or the Vulgate.
Well yes, we know this "colleague" of yours has "big issues with the Gospel of John." But this lady can't even get her story straight.
In the context from which John draws from (Isaiah 45), lies an example of how John could have written Jn. 1:1 had he intended an indefinite rendering. Had John intended to mean that the Word was “a god,” then he probably would have done so the way Isaiah 45 stresses indefiniteness. Had he followed the verbal patterns of Isaiah 45, it “definitely” (pun intended) would have been more emphatic, and laid stress on the fact that there was “a god” with God. The allusion being drawn upon needs to guide our interpretation and translation in the same way it governed and encapsulated John’s thought when he penned Jn. 1:1; after all, we have to assume he’s not trying to contradict the very place he alludes. John is not trying to expand on some “all new” concept about the λόγος, but is in keeping with the OT’s reflections on λόγος (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26). John just gives us a little bit of his own Christological ponderings and reflections in light of an era so saturated in λόγος speculation. It’s John’s way of expressing his own Christological convictions and reflections (“from the margins,” so-to-speak), in keeping with his own Jewish heritage. John is “riding on the curtails” of Isaiah 45, Genesis 1, all the meanwhile, incorporating his very own personal “style/touch” to the text to demonstrate that Christ was there, using language (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) exclusively used elsewhere to illustrate the relationship between God the Father and Christ (cf. Jn. 1:1b, 13:1, 13:3, 14:6, 14:12, 16:5, 16:10, 16:17, 16:28) without also contradicting the very place governing his line of thought (Isaiah 45).
Envision a playwright: Who in the narrative is playing the lead roles? In John's narrative, Christ wears the “hat” of “the Word.” Yet, in the OT (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26), the λόγος is nowhere depicted as a “second god,” but the force and power — God's own words — through whom He used to create. It is in this light that John places Christ right into the paradigm.
One ought to understand John as placing Christ (a second person) within the “metaphysic” of God, not misplacing Him outside of God's very own “metaphysic” as an external force (a “second god”).
I would love to have more of a one-on-one with this individual so I could press them directly.
In the context from which John draws from (Isaiah 45), lies an example of how John could have written Jn. 1:1 had he intended an indefinite rendering. Had John intended to mean that the Word was “a god,” then he probably would have done so the way Isaiah 45 stresses indefiniteness. Had he followed the verbal patterns of Isaiah 45, it “definitely” (pun intended) would have been more emphatic, and laid stress on the fact that there was “a god” with God. The allusion being drawn upon needs to guide our interpretation and translation in the same way it governed and encapsulated John’s thought when he penned Jn. 1:1; after all, we have to assume he’s not trying to contradict the very place he alludes. John is not trying to expand on some “all new” concept about the λόγος, but is in keeping with the OT’s reflections on λόγος (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26). John just gives us a little bit of his own Christological ponderings and reflections in light of an era so saturated in λόγος speculation. It’s John’s way of expressing his own Christological convictions and reflections (“from the margins,” so-to-speak), in keeping with his own Jewish heritage. John is “riding on the curtails” of Isaiah 45, Genesis 1, all the meanwhile, incorporating his very own personal “style/touch” to the text to demonstrate that Christ was there, using language (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) exclusively used elsewhere to illustrate the relationship between God the Father and Christ (cf. Jn. 1:1b, 13:1, 13:3, 14:6, 14:12, 16:5, 16:10, 16:17, 16:28) without also contradicting the very place governing his line of thought (Isaiah 45).
Envision a playwright: Who in the narrative is playing the lead roles? In John's narrative, Christ wears the “hat” of “the Word.” Yet, in the OT (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26), the λόγος is nowhere depicted as a “second god,” but the force and power — God's own words — through whom He used to create. It is in this light that John places Christ right into the paradigm.
One ought to understand John as placing Christ (a second person) within the “metaphysic” of God, not misplacing Him outside of God's very own “metaphysic” as an external force (a “second god”).
I would love to have more of a one-on-one with this individual so I could press them directly.
You of all know that I am a Trinitarian of Trinitarians. We have crossed paths before. If you recall, we had previously discussed several passages on another thread ("Omitted Verses"), of which have also been employed in this thread, particularly 1 Peter 3:15.
Hopefully that conversation pushed you to certain limits, as I thought it was a very engaging discussion, and was healthy for the audience to see.
But this text (1 Jn. 5:7) was not discussed. Are you ready for round two?
Hopefully that conversation pushed you to certain limits, as I thought it was a very engaging discussion, and was healthy for the audience to see.
But this text (1 Jn. 5:7) was not discussed. Are you ready for round two?
Reply by her:
With respect this does not add to what you have already stated and just opinion / assumptions with no evidence. Jeremiah 1 doesn’t help – that’s just saying God knows his plans before he even sets them in motion. Otherwise what you are saying God formed Jesus, how can God be formed or created!
I think this conversation has been exhausted.
With respect this does not add to what you have already stated and just opinion / assumptions with no evidence. Jeremiah 1 doesn’t help – that’s just saying God knows his plans before he even sets them in motion. Otherwise what you are saying God formed Jesus, how can God be formed or created!
I think this conversation has been exhausted.
I think a closer reading of the text is much needed. Jer. 1:4-9 does not speak of the Word being formed or created. Rather, it is speaking about the Word’s participation in the action, just like Isaiah 44:24 does when it speaks of God “who formed you in the womb.”
Where Isaiah 44:24 speaks of God performing the action of the verb, Jeremiah 1:5 places the action of the verb also God, who acts through His Word. The Word becomes apart of God’s “metaphysic.”
How in the world does anyone take Jer. 1:4-9 to suggest the Word is created?
Where Isaiah 44:24 speaks of God performing the action of the verb, Jeremiah 1:5 places the action of the verb also God, who acts through His Word. The Word becomes apart of God’s “metaphysic.”
How in the world does anyone take Jer. 1:4-9 to suggest the Word is created?
Yes. Very few people understand the Trinity doctrine, and it promotes dishonesty to require people who don't understand the Trinity doctrine to confess they believe it to get saved. What? You must lie to get saved? If a person sees the deity of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in scrioture, only then should they confess believing it.
E
Believing in the Son for the forgiveness of sins is what is required to be saved. Most believers know very little Scripture when they first believe. They embark on a journey when they first believe and ask for forgiveness. They begin to study Scripture and learn and mark favorite verses and ponder what they read. It is a process as they begin to clean up their lives and relationships as the Spirit works in them. They come to fuller understanding over time and grow through their own experiences and even their failures. They view the world and what is taking place through their faith and grow in grace as they come to realize their own sinfulness and need of their Savior in their daily lives.
Those who know the Scriptures and willfully try to subvert what the Word teaches and push their interpretations on others as required doctrine is a separate issue. That enters the realm of Scribal and Pharisaical insistence on exactly what people must believe and do to be saved which usually includes some set of manmade rules and rituals that are required for Salvation, which they do not even really follow themselves. They want to lord over other people and their understanding and allegiances.
The discussions are worthwhile in that they make us dig deeper into Scripture for fuller understanding. Those who think they have it all figured out on either extreme often treat others with disdain revealing it has become about pride in their assertions. That is a telltale indication of those who are not acting in sincerity. Then it becomes a spitting match between the various extremes which results in people saying inappropriate things to each other. It is no longer about sharing and learning and becomes about winning an argument which makes believers look bad to discredit their faith.
That is why we are instructed to walk away from such contentious exchanges after a couple attempts to share our understanding of what is being discussed. Sharing relevant Scripture verses can be helpful as well and is usually not appreciated by those who want to argue. Many recent examples can be given and those who only want to argue go away after people stop talking with them. Others are in it for the long haul and get some kind of twisted satisfaction from putting others down. To each their own. Everything will eventually be know. In the mean time living with grace and love and baby faith is the answer.
Those who know the Scriptures and willfully try to subvert what the Word teaches and push their interpretations on others as required doctrine is a separate issue. That enters the realm of Scribal and Pharisaical insistence on exactly what people must believe and do to be saved which usually includes some set of manmade rules and rituals that are required for Salvation, which they do not even really follow themselves. They want to lord over other people and their understanding and allegiances.
The discussions are worthwhile in that they make us dig deeper into Scripture for fuller understanding. Those who think they have it all figured out on either extreme often treat others with disdain revealing it has become about pride in their assertions. That is a telltale indication of those who are not acting in sincerity. Then it becomes a spitting match between the various extremes which results in people saying inappropriate things to each other. It is no longer about sharing and learning and becomes about winning an argument which makes believers look bad to discredit their faith.
That is why we are instructed to walk away from such contentious exchanges after a couple attempts to share our understanding of what is being discussed. Sharing relevant Scripture verses can be helpful as well and is usually not appreciated by those who want to argue. Many recent examples can be given and those who only want to argue go away after people stop talking with them. Others are in it for the long haul and get some kind of twisted satisfaction from putting others down. To each their own. Everything will eventually be know. In the mean time living with grace and love and baby faith is the answer.
This is true. At the same time the Gospel is crystal clear. God the Son became a sinless Man to die for our sins. Therefore to believe on Him is to recognize that it is God who came to die for us. Then when a person is baptized, they also see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being involved in salvation.
amen 100% agree. This is why those who attack the "Trinity" also attack the Lord Jesus as God, not all but many of them. Therefore
They can't be saved. They have tey to be enlightened. This is spiritually discerned.
1Cor 12 : 3 says
3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
It is not the statement. What saved you it is the faith and belief in the Statement that was said.
-
1
- Show all