Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Can Trinity Believers Explain This
Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 300 (174734)
01-07-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by wmscott
11-12-2004 12:00 PM


quote:
Noticed you quoted from my post, thought I would inject some information on John 1:1. Look at the Greek wording for John 1:1 "En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros tonTheon, kai theos en ho Logos." Notice that the first Theon or theos is preceeded by the Greek word 'ton' and the second one is not. John used 'ton' to emphasize the first 'Theon' and not the second, throughout the whole book of John, he always used ton before theos when referring to Jehovah God. The lack of the word ton before the second theos at John 1:1 indicates a lesser use of the word theos. Which makes it pretty clear that in reference to Jesus he was saying with God and then god like. There is no scriptural support at John 1:1 for claiming that Jesus is God almighty.
I missed this thread iin its entirety!
Dear WM Scott Anderson,
Reading between the lines it looks like you are quoting from the bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Please take a look at this link below about what Greek scholars think about the translation of John 1:1
No webpage found at provided URL: http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
John clearly links the word with God. Your arguments against the trinity (probably not the best term for the Godhead) are modalistic which I could understand why you say God and Jesus are not the same being. The best analogy for the Godhead I have heard (any analogy really can never capture the full understanding of the Godhead or trinity in its entirety) is 'triple point', where water exists simultaneously in 3 sates, ice, liquid and vapour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by wmscott, posted 11-12-2004 12:00 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by wmscott, posted 01-07-2005 9:01 PM Mike_King has replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 300 (175035)
01-08-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by wmscott
01-07-2005 9:01 PM


Re: Just old and wrong Trinity arguments.
Hi,
Are you a Jehovah's witness?
Because those arguments you use are what the JWs use.
Here is a link which includes CH Dodd whom you have mentioned about what the Greek scholars really think what John 1 V1 means
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.equip.org/free/DJ520.htm
Furthermore
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Dodd.htm
There is only one God according to the bible, but the personhood of Jesus means that he was fully a man and also fully God.
But thats only part of the story. You say from Galations 3:20 that God is one person. The actual Christian doctrine of trinity states at its core
one God
Father,Son,Holy Spirit, each God
Father,Son,Holy Spirit each distinct
All throughout John, Jesus links himself with Yahweh:
Eg John 8:58-59,John 18:5-6 When Jesus was asked to identify himself, replies "I am", they all fall backwards at the shock and power of those words.
If you are willing, I can send you some notes on the trinity which should clear this matter up?

Best Regards
Mike King

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by wmscott, posted 01-07-2005 9:01 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by truthlover, posted 01-09-2005 2:19 AM Mike_King has replied
 Message 258 by wmscott, posted 01-10-2005 4:19 PM Mike_King has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 300 (175153)
01-09-2005 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by wmscott
01-07-2005 9:01 PM


Post 252 was meant for WM Scott
Sorry,
That last post of mine was for WM Scott!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by wmscott, posted 01-07-2005 9:01 PM wmscott has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 300 (175157)
01-09-2005 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by truthlover
01-09-2005 2:19 AM


Re: Just old and wrong Trinity arguments.
Dear Truthlover,
Just to clarify,I totally agree with what you posted, I was actually challenging WM Scott on his position. I don't post very often in these forums , but to quote you:
quote:
The Nicene Creed, however, does not teach what you teach, nor what the the Christian Research Institute, writers of that web page (they own equip.org), teach. The Nicene Creed does not say "Father, Son, Holy Spirit, each God," nor does it say that "the Word is the one true Almighty God." On the contrary, it says "We believe in one God, the Father...and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God," a teaching that could as easily be taken to agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses as with modern Protestants and Roman Catholics.
In AD 416 Augustine made the classical statement on the doctrine . And upon that, that the credal statement 'Quicunquie Vault' (c 430 AD) was based.
'The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God'
In AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon finally drew together and ratified all orthodox ideas that had been accepted up to that date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by truthlover, posted 01-09-2005 2:19 AM truthlover has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 300 (183279)
02-05-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by wmscott
02-05-2005 7:57 AM


Re: The Trinity doctrine is clearly made out of silly putty,
Hi Wm Scott Anderson
You have had my notes on the teaching of the Godhead/Trinity as well, but your standpoint will always state that Jesus is a lesser god, because of the way the New World Translation twists what was actually written all the way through. This is why the doctrine of Trinity came about, because Christians recognised there was only one God and if Jesus was right about his claims directly and indirectly being God in human form, there you have a problem.
I have two questions for you, from John 1 V 1, how many gods are there? How did you get on with those notes from me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by wmscott, posted 02-05-2005 7:57 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by wmscott, posted 02-06-2005 8:08 AM Mike_King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024