aa:
You said: “…speaking of 0% pertaining to john 1:1, geez, thats almost all of our posts now, isnt it? this is common when discussing the trinity with a trinitarian. (okay, i know were only discussing the deity of the word right now, you dont have to correct me again. but come on, its all about the trinity, isnt it? otherwise it wouldnt be on this particular thread). what i mean to say is, 9 times out of 10, when debating these matters, the trinitarians will veer off the subject, and concentrate more on pointless "side debates" if you will; its perfectly normal, and i expect it.”
Here are a few comments that refer to your above, quoted statement. In order to discuss the subject of the thread started by Mark, the trinity, I approached it in a manner that I have found to be profitable when objectively examining Scripture. This is referred to as “exegesis” (I know that you remember that word). If one approaches several passages at one time, it becomes less systematic and more cumbersome. I find that, for my simple mind, one verse at a time works well.
Now some of what I am saying may be repetitious, but I say it again for clarification. As I examine a particular subject one verse at a time, I see what information the verse lends to the matter under discussion. If you prefer, I will be more than happy to classify this discovery as “information” rather than evidence. It seems that such discussion over “evidence” and “proof” has distracted from the subject at hand, so I will thus proceed if you so desire.
For additional clarification, it is my position that John 1:1 in no way establishes or proves the doctrine of the trinity. For me, it simply supplies “information” that is pertinent to the subject of whether or not the trinity is a Biblical teaching. It is a starting point.
You said: “i do commend you on your very first use of cross-referencing other scriptures this time though. let me just say, ITS ABOUT TIME. i know its not usually "the way you do things", and youd rather try and convince someone the meaning of ONE scripture before looking at any others, but maybe youre starting to see the importance of cross-referencing.”
It is not my intent, nor do I possess the ability, to “convince” anyone about a spiritual matter. That is God’s job. And yes, cross-referencing is important, but here are two important points regarding it:
1. Cross referencing serves a valid purpose once the first passage has been examined and both parties agree to its content/interpretation. If not, then:
2. Cross-referencing is a dead-end when agreement on a verse (as discussed in point 1) has not been achieved, for one will be attempting to disprove one verse with the other(s). The reason for the attempt to disprove comes from one party maintaining that a single, examined verse establishes the doctrinal teaching (or issue at hand). Why is this so? Because he is operating from a false premise and attempting to influence or convince the other that his premise is truth. There may be other factors that point out the premature application of cross-referencing.
In your 2nd post of the day, you said:
“ well, it didnt take me long to look up and laugh at the joke of a notion you proposed, namely that these scriptures you cited supposedly make it "clear" that before "the beginning" only god existed. ill quote you first before showing the fallacies in your argument.....”
Because of what I’ve stated above regarding the use of cross-referencing, I violated my own rules. I prematurely used it. I was wrong in doing so. Therefore, I apologize for the use of that tactic. Nevertheless, your comments on the cross-referenced passages are worthy of subsequent consideration – but not by me at this time (although I am quite tempted to do so). The “information” from John 1:1 must be first agreed to. Then I (we) could move on.
quote: Second (and finally), before the beginning (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1), only God existed. This is clear from John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16.
Then you said: “-are you serious hairy? lets break down each scripture one at a time…”
Gee, you sound like me. So, Mr. aa, “let’s break down each Scripture one at a time…” Let’s begin with John 1:1.
Review what the verse says, remembering that what it “says” must first be determined by knowing the language: both English and koine. If either one of us fails to do so, we are refuting both languages and the grammar which interprets them correctly. Then we would be falling into the eisegetical trap. I can’t change the meaning of words to suit my opinion.
Finally (and rather repetitiously), here is what the verse says:
1. “In the beginning was the Word:” the Word continually was.
2. “The Word was with God:” the Word was continually face-to-face with God.
3. “The Word was God:” the Word continually was God.
Each of these points can be more specifically and grammatically dissected. I would suggest that we not do so all at once, but one phrase at a time. The reason is that just as with the exegesis of more than one verse at a time, further examination might be impaired by faulty conclusions – eisegesis.
I know that you are not a Trinitarian and that I am. For the sake of objective examination, I am willing to set aside my belief in the trinity. Are you willing to set aside your belief in the contrary? Should we not examine the Scriptures, carefully, to see whether this matter is so, or to be disregarded?
This is my suggestion. The choice to do so is yours. If you can’t agree, then further discussion with each other would not be profitable for either of us.
Hairdog
