How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

When we look at this phrase in the Old Testament, we see that "to call upon the name of the Lord" was used to designate prayer. Consider the following verses:1 Kings 18:24, "And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD [YHWH]: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God."
1 Kings 18:37, "Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD [YHWH] God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench."
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul."Clearly, the phrase is used of God in reference to prayer to Him.This same phrase is used in reference to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:2 and Rom 10:12. It is obvious that Christians are to call upon the name of the Jesus in prayer.You still haven't explained how come Jesus asks us to pray to him:
"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it ." (John 14:13,14)Moreover, 2 Cor 12:7 is a passage that clearly has Paul praying to Jesus 3 times in a petition request."And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet meto keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me." (2 Cor 12:7-9: 7)Although initially one might argue that Lord could refer to the Father, we notice that God is the normal term to refer to the Father and Lord is the normal term that refers to Christ. (See Eph 4:4-6). This Lord whom Paul prayed to three times replied: "My (the Lord's) power is perfected in weakness" (Lord at that stage could be either Father or Son.) It all becomes clear, though, in the contrast of Paul's weakness with the "Power of Christ" (which refers back to Lord, to whom Paul was praying.) Power of Christ is a direct reference back to the statement, "MY POWER is perfected in weakness.
After Paul prayed to the LORD, this same LORD said, "MY POWER(Christ's power) is perfected in your weakness.And if all that wasn't enough: the very last verse of the Bible ends with a prayer to Jesus: Rev 22:20 "Even so, come Lord Jesus" is an example of a prayer to Jesus.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Let's make this clearer : Jesus and God are one being, consisting of three 'persons' / manifestations / facets, each with distinct role, behaviour and will. why ? Like I said, each 'person' of the Trinity has distinct role and will. Jesus mediates to the Father. Paul is right, God is one, he is One being consisting of three distinct facets. One of the facets (Father) cannot be directly approached, nor has he the redeeming feature (to us) of having existed in human form. Another facet (Jesus), has both these features, therefore he is acting as the mediator to the first facet (Father). What is the problem ? You seem to get stuck on the being / person tautology. I repeat, I'm using 'person', not [person], as to make a distinction between a physical individual and a distinct personality. Maybe calling it [facet] will help clear up the confusion. Ok then let me play devil's advocate: In this case, even by your definition of Jesus, he cannot be the mediator. You claim Jesus to be a lesser God, an angel, but to submit to the Father's will, his will always coincides with the Father's, correct ? Both the Trinity and JW doctrine claim that Jesus cannot do something against the Father's will, right ? Then, by your definition above, Jesus -even if he is a separate God, cannot be the mediator, because his will is that of the Father's and the required neutrality is lost.By this definition, any doctrine that purports Jesus and God's will to coincide, cannot support the notion of Jesus as a mediator, as he cannot be a neutral party. Nope, as long as his will is that of the Father's, he cannot be independent. An independent mediator must not have vested interests on either side. Jesus has in both the human and the Divine side.Here's what Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says :Main Entry: 2mediate
Pronunciation: 'mE-dE-"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ated; -ating
Etymology: Medieval Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare, from Late Latin, to be in the middle, from Latin medius middle
transitive senses
1 a : to effect by action as an intermediary b : to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary
2 a : to act as intermediary agent in bringing, effecting, or communicating b : to transmit as intermediate mechanism or agency
intransitive senses
1 : to interpose between parties in order to reconcile them
2 : to reconcile differencesNote the absence of the words "neutral" and "independent". A mediator is just an intermediary agent between two parties. He doesn't have to be neutral, nor independent.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Dear Legend;

quote:

---

When we look at this phrase in the Old Testament, we see that "to call upon the name of the Lord" was used to designate prayer. Consider the following verses:
1 Kings 18:24, "And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD [YHWH]: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God." . . .
Psalm 116:4, "Then called I upon the name of the LORD [YHWH] ; O LORD [YHWH], I beseech thee, deliver my soul." Clearly, the phrase is used of God in reference to prayer to Him.

---

To support your argument that calling upon Jesus' name means that we are to pray to him, would require that calling upon someone's name always means praying to that person. I have already shown you several scriptures in the NT that show that calling upon some one's name doesn't have to mean praying to that person, now I will show you the same point in the OT. Genesis 12:7-8 "After that he built an altar there to Jehovah, who had appeared to him. Later he moved from there to the mountainous region to the east of Bethel and pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. Then he built an altar there to Jehovah and began to call on the name of Jehovah." In these verses Abraham builds two altars to Jehovah, but only after building the second does he begin to "call on the name of Jehovah," why is that? Altars are for worship by offering a sacrifice so that one's requests maybe favorably heard, so Abraham had certainly been praying to Jehovah. What Abraham apparently did with the second altar that he didn't do with the first, is that he preached about Jehovah and started a public worship of the true God. His calling on God in this verse is in the form of his acting as a witness or representative of Jehovah. Some translations will have a reference in a footnote to this effect and some translate it bring this point out more. "and he buildeth there an altar to Jehovah, and preacheth in the name of Jehovah."Genesis 12:8 -- Young's Bible. So in verse 8, Abraham's calling on the name of Jehovah doesn't mean that he said a prayer to Jehovah, it is referring to his preaching. So while Abraham's preaching undoubtedly included praying, the term 'calling on the name of Jehovah' can include much more that just prayer.In the Bible some words are used with added meanings, like 'knowing' god. Exodus 6:3 "And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them." They knew God's name was Jehovah, but they had not seen the powerful works that Jehovah was going to do, which revealed some of the power behind the name.
The same is true of the term "calling" on some one's name, it can mean prayer and in some verses such as the ones you cited, it does. But in other verses it can have a much broader meaning as I showed in the NT in my last post. In the OT, we can see this same point expressed at Proverbs 18:10 "The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous runs and is given protection." We enter God's name by calling on it, and we do that by our whole conduct which includes prayer. Hosea touches on this at 7:14 "And they did not call to me for aid with their heart," here Jehovah is not talking about prayers, he is talking about the people's motivation or the kind of people they were. Which was wicked with wicked hearts, they had no heartfelt desire to serve God.

quote:

---

1 Cor. 1:2 and Rom 10:12. It is obvious that Christians are to call upon the name of the Jesus in prayer.

---

If we check the verses it is 'obvious' that is not what they say.
1 Corinthians 1:2 "to the congregation of God that is in Corinth, to YOU who have been sanctified in union with Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones, together with all who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:" Paul is referring to all Christians everywhere, he is not referring to praying specifically, he is referring to the whole way of life as Christians.
Romans 10:12-13 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." Paul again is referring to the same whole Christian way of life, I included the next verse because it ties in by showing that the 'calling' saves. Now you know that a person isn't saved by making one prayer, it is following the Christian way of life, walking in the footsteps of the Christ that saves. Part of that of course includes prayer, and if you want to take this verse as just talking about prayer, the second verse shows that those prayers while made in the name of Jesus are to be made to Jehovah.

quote:

---

You still haven't explained how come Jesus asks us to pray to him: "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it ." (John 14:13,14)

---

You are taking one verse and ignoring the context, this verse is part of a discussion. Jesus clarifies the point in John 15:16 "that no matter what YOU ask the Father in my name he might give it to YOU." and he restates the point again.
John 16:23-26 "If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name. Until this present time YOU have not asked a single thing in my name. Ask and YOU will receive, that YOUR joy may be made full. "I have spoken these things to YOU in comparisons. The hour is coming when I will speak to YOU no more in comparisons, but I will report to YOU with plainness concerning the Father. In that day YOU will ask in my name, and I do not say to YOU that I shall make request of the Father concerning YOU." That is what Jesus and his disciples are talking about when they ask Jesus, the are asking Jehovah in Jesus' name as our mediator to Jehovah God.

quote:

---

Moreover, 2 Cor 12:7 is a passage that clearly has Paul praying to Jesus 3 times in a petition request.

---

You are referring to 2 Corinthians 12:8 "I three times entreated the Lord" which yes is a reference to Jesus. Notice also 2 Corinthians 12:9 "yet he really said to me: "My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness."" Paul when he made his request to Jesus got a reply! That normally doesn't happen when you pray, Paul made no big deal about because he didn't make his request in a prayer. Notice the preceding verses, Paul is speaking about a man who was caught away to heaven, if you read the context the man was Paul himself. Paul apparently made his request to Jesus in person when he spoke with him in this vision or one of the others he had. Galatians 1:12 "neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught [it], except through revelation by Jesus Christ." Galatians 2:2 "But I went up as a result of a revelation."

quote:

---

the very last verse of the Bible ends with a prayer to Jesus: Rev 22:20 "Even so, come Lord Jesus" is an example of a prayer to Jesus.

---

Revelation 22:20 "Amen! Come, Lord Jesus." John's statement is not a prayer, prayers end with the word 'amen,' they don't normally start with it. John is staying he agrees with Jesus' statement that he is coming. He could also be relying to Jesus in the vision. Either way, his statement is not a prayer.

quote:

---

Let's make this clearer : Jesus and God are one being, consisting of three 'persons' / manifestations / facets, each with distinct role, behaviour and will.

---

Yes that is what I thought you have been saying, and like I said before.

quote:

---

According to the Trinity Jesus is God, and "God is only one" so Jesus if he is God, he and God are one person. Which would mean according to Galatians 3:20, that there was no mediator.

---

If Jesus was a manifestation/facet of God, he would be part of God and God is one. So as Paul stated at Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." According to both your definition and Trinity doctrine, Jesus and God are one, which according to Paul would mean that there was no mediator. Jesus had to be a completely separate being to be a mediator between God and man. He had to be in the middle, between the two parties, which he couldn't do if he was a 'facet' of God. For if he was part of God, as Paul stated "God is only one", he could not be a separate party to act as a mediator. In Galatians 3:20 Paul clearly states that God is one, and when dealing with only one person, there is no mediator. Since Jesus was the mediator, it was impossible for him to be part of God, according to Paul. Paul obviously didn't believe in a Trinity, he clearly believed that Jesus was separate from God.

quote:

---

Both the Trinity and JW doctrine claim that Jesus cannot do something against the Father's will, right ?

---

Incorrect, Jesus would never do anything against his Father's will, but he is certainly capable of doing so. Look at the devil, he was once a perfect angel and he choose to go a against Jehovah's will. That is why he tested Jesus, Jesus could have failed the test, his remaining faithful was a willful choice not a preprogrammed trait. Jesus is our exemplar, he set a perfect example of faithful loyal obedence to Jehovah, it wouldn't be that if Jesus faithfulness wasn't by choice.

quote:

---

Here's what Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says :
Main Entry: 2mediate
Pronunciation: 'mE-dE-"At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ated; -ating
Etymology: Medieval Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare, from Late Latin, to be in the middle, from Latin medius middle
transitive senses
1 a : to effect by action as an intermediary b : to bring accord out of by action as an intermediary
2 a : to act as intermediary agent in bringing, effecting, or communicating b : to transmit as intermediate mechanism or agency
intransitive senses
1 : to interpose between parties in order to reconcile them
2 : to reconcile differences
Note the absence of the words "neutral" and "independent". A mediator is just an intermediary agent between two parties. He doesn't have to be neutral, nor independent.

---

Reread the parts in bold. Yes Jesus didn't have to be an impartial arbitrator, but he was the go-between, the intermediary agent. As such he had to be in the 'middle' between the two parties, he could not be one of the two parties or he couldn't be in the middle. Merriam-Webster agrees with Paul, Jesus could not be a part of God and yet still act as our mediator.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Have you ever heard it described as the same being on 3 different planes?An example would be the typical flatland idea. One could say that the spirit realm is the 4th demension. We are 3 demensional beings, made up of 3 parts, body/soul/spirit. Your soul is "intangible." It is your mind, will, and emotions. Your spirit would be like your body, only on a 4th demensional level. Angels and demons fall into this category.If you believe that could be true, then perhaps Jesus is the 3 demensional image of God, the Holy Spirit is the 4th demension (able to be everywhere at once?) and God the Father would be the 5th demensional image of God. Since we 3 demensional beings can't fathom the 4th demension (yet), we certainly couldn't envision a 5th one.Let's pretend humans were 2 demensional. God would be a 3 demensional creature. If he stuck 3 fingers into our world, they would appear to materialize out of nowhere, and all we would see would be 3 circles. As 2 demensional beings, we have no idea how God could do that, or indeed any concept of what he "looks" like.It's all pure conjecture until the spirit realm can be proven to exist, but this is the best description I've heard of it.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Dear Tal;Your post, while very imaginative, highlights what happens to Trinitarians when confronted with scriptural conflicts with the Trinity doctrine. They take flights of fancy that would make an imaginative three year old trying to explain an empty cookie jar, blush with embarrassment. Instead of confronting the obvious, that the Trinity is non-biblical, they fly off into a philosophical fog so dense that they don't have to look at what they don't want to see. Can you imagine the simple fishermen who were the first followers of Christ, saying what you said? The solution is simple, there is no Trinity. Anything that can't be explained simply, isn't true. (even the most complicated discoveries in science boil down to a few simple equations.)The spirit realm or 'heaven' is not a higher dimension of our universe, since it and God, existed before the creation of the universe.Sincerely Yours; Wm. Scott Anderson

So what are spirits in your opinion?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Dear Tal; In the Bible we are given very little information as to physical composition of spirits, Paul did provide some insight here at.
1 Corinthians 15:40-54 "And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised up in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven. As the one made of dust [is], so those made of dust [are] also; and as the heavenly one [is], so those who are heavenly [are] also. And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly one. However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. But when [this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and] this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: "Death is swallowed up forever."So according to Paul, spirits do not have flesh or blood and are nonphysical, they are not made of matter. There is also only one 'type" of spirit body, and all the spirit creatures have this one form or type of spirit body.Philippians 2:5-6 "Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."Jesus Christ has the same 'form' or type of spirit body as does Jehovah God. This point is explained more at;Hebrews 1:1-4 "God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."Jesus is like God in two ways, physically having the same type of spirit body and having the same goals and qualities. Notice that Jesus "had become better than the angels" showing that the angels also have the same type of spirit body as Jesus and God, since Jesus' elevation above the angels is because of his being given a more powerful position rather than a different form from them.The bodies that the spirits have, existed before our universe was created, as shown by this scripture below and others too.Colossians 1:15-17 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,"So whatever the spirits are made of, it had to exist before our universe was made, so it is not of our universe and is of course nonphysical. We may get a clue as to the nature of spirit bodies from Paul's statement at;Hebrews 1:7 "Also, with reference to the angels he says: "And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire.""While this verse probably refers more to the angels power and ability execute justice, it could also have a reference to their bodies being made of what we would think of as a sort of very powerful and hot energy. But not a form of energy that we know of, since this form would of had to predate the creation of our universe and all of it's matter and energy. The nearest thing in our universe to this 'spirit body energy' would probably be the center of a star like our sun. If an angel were to appear in his true form near one of us, it would possibly be like standing in front of a open door to the center of the sun. Anyone standing in front of such a open door would be vaporized in a flash, by a "flame of fire".Jehovah God has the same form as his angels, just as animals are flesh and blood but some are much more powerful than others, he has greater power than his angels while composed of the same form. It would be expected that the one who created the universe with it's stars, quasars and super novas, would be even more powerful than they are in his form. Which God being made out of such a powerful energy would explain why, at Exodus 33:20 God stated that "no man may see me and yet live." Jesus affirmed God's statement at Exodus at John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time;" the reason is simple, God is so powerful that we would be vaporized by his mere physical presence.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

I think you may be assuming too much about things our human brains cannot comprehend. From the passage you quoted it says there are heavenly bodies (plural) and that their splendor is of a different sort than earthly bodies. I don't think that this is justification to say that ALL non-earthly creatures have one form or type of body. From the passage in Phillipians, I don't think one can conclude this with certainty. The word for form can also be used figuratively and in this case would mean "Who, being of divine nature." Looking at verses 6 and 7 I don't see any way that you could assume God the Father is bound to a certain kind of body. This doesn't make logical sense to me either... How is God bound to a body made of stuff he creates? Again, I don't see any indication from this passage that God must have a body. The idea of a 'being' necessitating a body is a human one. Well, I agree that they are one in essence and two in person (however that works), but the idea that God (Jehovah) needs a "physical" spiritual body is unfounded. Huh? Your conclusion that He MUST have the same type of body as the angels is unfounded IMO. If God can make Antelope and Deer, he can make angels and a new species of born again humans. (I believe somewhere Paul calls us a "new spiritual species", but maybe I'm thinking of something else). I don't disagree that this could be the case, but again I don't see any basis from this passage to conclude that it must be so.Since we do not even know if a form of time existed "before" the universe, I don't think this statement really makes sense. We are dealing with things we cannot comprehend. I still don't see any scriptural justification for this, plus it doesn't make sense for the One who creates all things to be confined to a body which he must have created. That "reason" is just something you made up and doesn't make much sense. If God is omnipresent, we are in his presence though we do not see him. If God is omnipotent, he can surely keep himself from destroying that which he created. And finally, I have yet to see any way or reason that God must be bound by a "physical" body.I think we should recognize approximations and anthropomorphisms for what they are and never assume them to be a perfect idea of the real thing. For now, we only know in part; our minds are confined to universe we live in and any attempt to state in human terms with certainty what lies beyond is pure speculation.

Dear Hangdawg13; Absolutely, I was speculating, Tal asked my opinion and I gave it. What I posted was a guess, an educated guess inferred from a few scriptures and some common sense, but still a guess. The finer points I can't argue, because I can't effectively argue a guess. But some of the basic points are a matter of scriptural fact. 1 Corinthians 15:40 "there are heavenly bodies" and Jesus in his body or whatever is the same type as God. Hebrews 1:1-4 "the exact representation of his very being," Yes I agree, but we do know by scripture that Jehovah, Jesus and all the angels; have spiritual bodies. These bodies as I posted before, are not physical or anything that we know or can comprehend. Which is why I compared them to some form of energy, an energy being without any physical body, a thing not of this universe. No one can define what these nonphysical spirit bodies are, but the spirit creatures have them, whatever they are. Jehovah, Jesus and the angels are real and exist, they are not imaginary and hence have some kind of presence or 'body' in some sense of the word. When Satan is killed, something is destroyed, that 'something' is his spirit body. If there wasn't a spirit body that could be destroyed, then the Devil couldn't be killed, any more than you can literally kill a fictional character. Reality requires a real thing, even if we can't understand what it is.Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

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.htmlJohn 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.

Dear Mike_King;I checked out your link, and it was all old and wrong arguments. None of their arguments hold up, just as they didn't hold up decades ago. In arguing against the usage of the term 'god' in a lesser sense they made the statement: Which is shown to be in error by what John recorded Jesus as saying at:John 10:34-35 "Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "YOU are gods"'? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came,"Jesus was of course quoting Psalm 82:6. Jesus pointed out that in scripture Jehovah God used the term 'gods' in reference to men. John of course wrote this account down, so he used the term god or gods in the lesser sense just as Jesus did. Which flatly contradicts their whole argument. Paul also used the term god in reference to others aside from Jehovah.1 Corinthians 8:5-6 "just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God."
2 Corinthians 4:4 "the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers."The lack of the Greek 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. Basically all your link did was to try to argue their way around this basic point. Even a number of Trinitarian Bible scholars state that there is no support for the Trinity doctrine at John 1:1. The supposed support is an artifact of translation and interpretation. Certainly "massive' numbers of trinitarian scholars are against it, a number of scholars agree with the NWT's rendering of John 1:1. ( "A possible translation . . . would be, 'The Word was a god' Professor C. H. Dodd) The rendering is an acceptable translation of the Greek text. The obvious error of their statement is shown by the fact that a number of Bible translations have simular rendering, using the second 'god' in this verse in a lesser form. Some translations show this by using 'god' in small letters instead of 'God' with a capital letter.
The Emphatic Diaglott, of 1864, "And the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."
The Four Gospels, 2ed 1947 "And the Word was with God, and the Word was god."Some translations use the word 'deity' to show this lesser form.
Simple English "The Word was with God. The Word was deity."Some use the term divine or godlike.
American Translation "The Word was divine."
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, "and godlike kind was the Logos."A number of translations use the wording 'a god' just like the NWT does.
A 1694 translation by Collegiant Reijnier Rooleeuw "And the word was a god"
The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text. "and the word was a god."
The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, "and a god was the word."
The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. "and the Word was a God."
There are also at least five German Bibles that use 'a god' at John 1:1So the web site is wrong on all their points, as I stated above, these are old arguments and have been shown to be wrong a long time ago. For the Trinity John 1:1 is a dead horse, the fact that Trinitarians keep using it, shows the total lack of scriptural support for the Trinity.According to the Trinity Jesus is God, and "God is only one" so Jesus if he is God, he and God are one person. Which would mean according to Galatians 3:20, that there was no mediator. If Jesus was a manifestation/facet of God, he would be part of God and God is one. So as Paul stated at Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." According to your illustration and the Trinity doctrine, Jesus and God are one, which according to Paul would mean that there was no mediator. Jesus had to be a completely separate being to be a mediator between God and man. He had to be in the middle, between the two parties, which he couldn't do if he was a 'facet' of God. For if he was part of God, as Paul stated "God is only one", he could not be a separate party to act as a mediator. In Galatians 3:20 Paul clearly states that God is one, and when dealing with only one person, there is no mediator. Since Jesus was the mediator, it was impossible for him to be part of God, according to Paul. Paul obviously didn't believe in a Trinity, he clearly believed that Jesus was separate from God.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

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.htmFurthermore No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Dodd.htmThere 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 coreone God
Father,Son,Holy Spirit, each God
Father,Son,Holy Spirit each distinctAll 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 RegardsMike King

wmscott, I'm just curious, do you believe that Jesus has all the same essential characteristics of God (righteousness, justice, sovereignty, eternal life, love, omnipotence, omniscience, etc....)?I think you said in a previous post that Jesus and Jehovah had the same goals and characteristics, but that they were not the same person. If you agree that God has the same characteristics as Jesus, then that is all I think the trinity means. God is one in essence or character and three in personhood.When you bow down to pray to God, God the Holy Spirit is praying inside you, Jesus is standing there listening and also standing at the Father's right hand mediating. Your prayer is to the ONE God, but he has described himself as three distinct persons in this way so that we can better understand him. That is how I think of the trinity.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 01-09-2005 00:26 AM

I. Your Link Your link is...well...the best word I can think of is bizarre.While there are quotes on that page saying that "The word is a god" is not a good translation, neither do those quotes agree with their conclusion that "the Word is the one true Almighty God."For example, Barrett is quoted as saying, "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true." How in the world could that possibly suggest "that the words of John 1:1 cannot be taken to mean anything less than that the Word is the one true Almighty God"?II. The Understanding of John 1:1 that John's Churches HadIn your link, Dodd draws a conclusion that seems to me to accurately summarize the consensus of that page and the consensus of what I have read in trying to understand the grammar of John 1:1. He says, "In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "Homoousios to patri is part of the Nicene Creed and is generally translated "one in substance with the Father."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.Of course, the Nicene Creed doesn't agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses, because it was specifically written to refute their position. However, it does not support the Protestant/RC view, either, because the Protestant/RC view did not exist and had never been heard of by any one when the Nicene Council convened.There were three "mainstream" views around in AD 325:1. The current JW view, championed by Arius, but supported by other bishops at the council, because Arius was only an elder and could not be part of the council. Perhaps there were many who had held to it before Arius, but it really wasn't different enough from the mainstream view to be argued about until Alexander, Arius' bishop, made it an issue. There's pretty much nothing in early Christian literature about this view until Arius.2. The "oneness" doctrine (modalism) which taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit were all just one person manifesting himself in different forms. This view was not really represented at the council, though it had been held to by many in the church since the second century. Tertullian says it was popular among the uneducated in the church.3. The "orthodox" view, which won out at Nicea and is the view taught by every church father who wrote on the subject. In this view, the one God is the Father, but somehow, in some unexplainable way, he had birthed a Son from inside himself, made from his own "essence" (being or material or substance...the "stuff" God is made of). The Son, being of God's substance, is divine, but he is not the one God; he is the Son of the one God.The Council of Nicea affirmed the third view. There is a letter, available in Socrates' history of the church (AD 374, available in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series) in which Eusebius of Caesarea (not to be confused with Eusebius of Nicodemia, who was one of Arius' champions) explained the Creed of Nicea. This is because the Creed was based on Caesarea's baptismal formula, and Eusebius was a little worried that the Council had affirmed too much, going beyond Scripture, and so he was explaining to his congregation why he agreed to have "homoousios" added to their baptismal formula in creating the Nicene Creed.This explanation makes clear what every scholar of early Christian history ought to know, because it's explained clearly by Justin (who goes a bit overboard in his explanations), Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, and others. There is one God, the Father. The Son came out of the Father in the beginning, and is made of God's substance. The Father is greater than the Son; in fact so much greater that the Father cannot be confined to one place, but the Son can. Therefore, every appearance of God in the Old Testament was the Son, not the Father, because the Father cannot be thus confined.The reason that the Son, who was born or made in the beginning, is not said to have a beginning, is because he came out of the Father. Before his birth, he was not separate from the Father, but was the Father's Logos (Word or Reason). We can't birth our Logos, but God can. God always had Logos, so the Logos can't have a beginning, even though there was a time that he was not birthed by the Father.No one had ever heard of a Trinity in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate persons, but they're all one God. That's a bizarre and incomprehensible idea, but it was developed by Athanasius and others in the fourth century as a reaction against Arianism, because the Council didn't settle anything. Athanasius aligned the orthodox bishops with the "oneness" bishops with his doctrine, and thus the Arian bishops were eventually vanquished at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, where all council decisions were called binding.III. A summaryI'm sorry that seems so complicated. It's really not. Simply put, the early church taught, pretty universally, that there is one God, the Father, and that one God had a Son, also divine.That's only difficult because no one teaches that any more, except the JW's, but they have put an Arian twist on it, making the Son created in the same manner as the rest of creation. The early church rejected that, saying that the Son was created from the substance of God, not from nothing like everything else was. That was taught clearly as early as Athenagoras, some 160 years before Nicea, and it was repeated often in early Christian literature.

Just a correction. Eusebius' letter to Caesaria about the Nicene Creed can be found in the introduction to Eusebius' history in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. A link to that history in various formats can be found at Work info: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library . I got to that page in the introduction by searching for "substance." The copy I have on my computer shows the letter starting on page 16, but I don't know that this matches the page #'s on the link I just gave.Also, the introduction leading into the letter shows an inexcusable ignorance of church history. Eusebius most certainly did not sign a "creed containing Athanasian doctrine." He signed a creed that came from his own church with the phrase "one in substance" added to it. Even a light review of the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed will show that they bear very little similarity to one another. The Athanasian creed is decades later. Athanasian doctrine had not been developed or heard of at the Council of Nicea.