The Trinity

by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

DakotaRed

John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In John 1:1, why does it say "the Word was with God?
That was in order to distinguish the Son from the Father.
But then, why does John 1:1 say that "the Word was God."?

In order to show that Jesus has the Full Nature of God.

That again is an interpretation. If Jesus has the full nature of God and was with God, you are stuck with 2 Gods, especially if separtate and distinct individuals as you claim. Yet, all throughout the Bible, it is repeatedly said that God is a single God, one being. Of the major faiths descending from those scrolls, only Christianity has embraced a triune God.
Even Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says that the LITERAL translation of John 1:1c is, "and a god was the word," but says that it is misleading. Although others are said to be gods, only Jesus' identification as such raises such a question, presumably to justify the claim he is God Almighty.

Other translators see the problem of John 1:1c and have substituted words as "divine" or "godlike" in lieu of either "God" or "a god." Grammatically speaking, one cannot be "with" another, and yet also be that other. By using the words noted above, it gives John 1:1c the essence of meaning as was intended, that Jesus, the Word, belonged to a class of being, or, spirits. God is a spirit, Jesus is a spirit, the angels are spirits. Yet, God is the Supreme Spirit of all, over even Jesus.
As I said above, if also God and a separate idividual, you have shown more than one God and that is unbiblical, to say the least.
John tells us his real purpose of his words at John 1:1 later on;
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

Surely, if John was telling us Jesus was actually God at John 1:1, wouldn't he be more consistent about it later?
Lew W
Reborn2002

Wow.
10 pages of ongoing debate in a thread questioning/defending the validity of the Trinity.
By now don't you believe that neither side is going to convince the other that they are correct?
As I predicted 7 pages ago, the opposing sides can continue until they are blue in the face (or with cramps in their typing fingers in this instance) and nothing will be accomplished other than the pride each person has in presenting long-winded arguments that they believe conclusively proves them the winner.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAH
I wonder just how many pages this thread will go before individuals tire of it.
Carry on boys.
Jason - Of The Laughing My Ass Off At These People Class
DakotaRed

John 3:13: And no man has ascended up to Heaven, except He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven.

Thanks for supplying that, Undisfellowshipped. I was so tired my eyes were crossing
John 3:13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (KJV)
13. "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (NKJV)
13. For only I, the Messiah, have come to earth and will return to heaven again. (the Living Bible)
13. No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. (NIV)
13. No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. (RSV)
13. I am the only one who ever came down from heaven; no one else has ever gone up to heaven. (Simple English Bible)
13. "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man. (NAS)
13. No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man; (New Jerusalem Bible)
13. No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. (New American Bible)
Sorry, not meaning to inundate you, these are some of the translations I have available here at home. But do see the problem here? That is a problem when some of the Bible is taken literally while some is not. Like John 1:1, to accept it literally causes much confusion. So, we seek what was meant by the writer. Problem there is that translators themselves cannot agree, some due to their own biases, which I'm afraid all translations have.
It is evident to me that Jesus was not both in heaven and on earth at the same time. But, trinitarians have used that to say he was omnipresent, when the context shows he was saying that no one would ascend to heaven, except for the one who descended from heaven, himself. That he later opened the path to heaven is another discussion. This verse is also much debated in the ongoing argument over whether or not he had a prexistence, but that too is another discussion. In fact, I have only lightly researched that subject to date.
Lew W
DakotaRed

LOL @ Reborn. If you go back to page one, I too said it was an endless debate, but am enjoying shaking the cobwebs from the old noggin again.
From my standpoint, to arrive at a trinity, one must use obscure and vague verses to support it, especially in the OT, the Hebrew verses. I find the trinitarian claim that it is clearly there somehwat ironic as the Jews have had those scrolls passed down for thousands of years and have taught them over and over, yet they see no trinity there. And, it is from their ancestors and in their language.
But, centuries later, along comes white Anglo/Saxon Christians telling them that they know their scrolls and history better than they do. God revealed himself to Abraham, the father of boith the Jews and Arabs, but neither embraces any trinitarian thought as to God. Surely, wouldn't they, above all others, have that knowledge?
I find it curious that trinitarians say they follow Jesus, but discard his very words and embrace obscure and vague words of others to justify the trinity. Jesus plainly said he was the Son, not the Father, the Father was greater, the Father was the only true God, and so on. But, these statements get discarded in favor of lessor words that can be interpreted to make the trinity seem true.
It's no wonder many have discarded the Bible and a belief God. Many times over, I have teetered on it myself.
Lew W
gumby

As I predicted 7 pages ago, the opposing sides can continue until they are blue in the face
Hey Jason.......well said. This happens so often that to us who have seen it go on and on....pretty much know the outcome..........10 pages long and no one budges.
I did! When I first came to this site I was Christian and after a long period of study I had finally believed in the Trinity. After many debates here....I changed my mind. Alan F, Lew, and others aided in this. Actually to be honest....I can see both sides view..........but........now I doubt the bible, as I'm studying it's authenticity. I now see Christianity as simply copiying former pagan ancient religion. The similarities are obvious to anyone who DARES to look into it (fundy's that is).
My point I guess is.....some DO change their opinions on the Trinity from debating here.....I did.
JosephMalik

John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In John 1:1, why does it say "the Word was with God?
That was in order to distinguish the Son from the Father.
But then, why does John 1:1 say that "the Word was God."?
In order to show that Jesus has the Full Nature of God.
To whoever said this:
This is an introductory comment to all the material that would follow in Johns gospel and should never have been understood as something that stands alone as many do. The Word was with God which shows another Being involved at the specific beginning under discussion just as the expression Let us make man in our image, after our likeness in Genesis during this same beginning. This WORD is not identified or called God to the God the WORD was with. This Word is being called God to man, the creation under discussion at this beginning. This gave the Word authority over such creation and has already been discussed in this thread more than once. The nature of God or the Word is not under discussion in these texts since man and life and how our salvation came about was all that John was concerned with.
Joseph
herk

Gumby,
Some among us were atheists at one time and are now believers. A former atheist who is a close friend of mine was a mathematics professor at Princeton. It was the study of math and astronomy that led him to a belief in God. Two other close friends were involved in space research until their retirement. They too became convinced, due to their studies in math, science and astronomy, that God exists. Examining matters mathematically and scientifically, all three have faith in the Bible but not in the Trinity. Not all scientists become believers, of course, but the fact that some do illustrates the fact that atheism and rejection of the Bible aren't the only alternatives for those with an inquiring and honest mind.
Herk
gumby

Is it SO BAD......some see it their OWN way.
In BOTH cases.....each one believes in Jesus and what he stood for. Why insist one side is wrong. If the subject is so obscure that there is TWO HONEST OPINIONS.....then God must not care which one you believe. "Let each one resolve in his OWN heart"
gumby

How goes it Herk?,
Gumby,
Some among us were atheists at one time and are now believers
I am a believer. I believe in God as yourself as I cannot ignor design, love spirituality, creation and all the EVIDENT things that make me believe in a creator. I have recently looking into the Bible, it's created canon, it's similarities with former religions, and this threw quite a monkey wrench in my life for the time. Also post from others here and their documentations of what they have found has put me where I'm at. That's OK. I always want to know the truth wheather it hurts or not.
All the questions I have about life were answered in the bible before. Now I haven't a clue what life is about and where it's headed.
herk

Gumby,
No one can scripturally make a strong case against what you've said. In the final analysis it is God and Christ who will be our judges. None of us has the right to condemn persons who have different beliefs than we do unless those beliefs are harmful to society, such as some of the simply awful teachings of the JWs.
That being said, we are admonished in the Scriptures to seek for truth. We were warned that there would be false prophets and false teachers. Jesus, the apostles and others were willing to give up their lives in defense of what they firmly believed was the truth of God. Men and women have given their lives for less worthy causes as well. Taking advantage of the freedom of expression is pretty tame by comparison. Most freedom advocates think it ought to be encouraged, not opposed, unless it starts to become too personal, vindictive, and hateful.
Herk

The Trinity

Share this