Yahweh 301,302 or Trinity 301,302

[Runningman]

Yeah, I know.

You dodged Romans 10:11.....again.

Everyone dodges except you apparently.

 

[makesends]

You sound more like a Bible lawyer than a theologian. "God never said He is sovereign" is a non-point.

She mentions it in relation to your supposed rebuttal of her assertion along the lines of, "The Bible doesn't say outright, 'x,y,z'."

Off topic, I have some cool pictures of a stand-out pine tree, locally called, "The Running Man", in my old stomping grounds; you are welcome to use one for an avatar, so you don't get confused with anyone else whose handle begins with R.

 

[Eleanor]

Could you be misunderstanding it because you're under the impression Jesus is God, but the Bible says it's that God was with him?

Let's go to what is staggeringly clear, which passage admits of no unbelieving "interpertation" apart from its plain wording, and from which the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is taken.

"In the beginning was (past tense, existed before the beginning) the Word,
and the Word was with God (distinct from the Father, two persons here),
and the Word was God (the same God whom he was with, the one God)
through whom all things are made (this Word is Creator, Col 1:16-20),
in whom was life ( the Word is the life, Jn 14:6) and
which life was the light of men, which the darkness has not (present tense) understood.

The Word ( who was God) became flesh and dwelled among us. (Jn 1:1, 14)

Keeping in mind that to the Greeks (Gentiles of the area to whom John was writing) logos was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe. John opens his gospel with the astounding declaration that the recently despised and crucified Jewish "criminal," the carpenter, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

 

[Eleanor]

Do you believe God is the Sovereign Lord as everyone else in the Bible clearly does?

Do you believe Jesus is God as the NT apostles do (Jn 1:1, 14, Tit 2:13)?

 

[Eleanor]

You sound more like a Bible lawyer than a theologian. "God never said He is sovereign" is a non-point.

Contraire. . .that explains a lot.

Then God never said he was Trinity is likewise a non-point.

 

[Eleanor]

Are you still atheistic about John 17:3?

The atheism is not his.

There is only one God, the true God, in three persons in only one name (singular, Mt 28:19).

 

[makesends]

Do you believe Jesus is God as the NT apostles do (Jn 1:1, 14, Tit 2:13)?

Check....

Contraire. . .that explains a lot.

Then God never said he was Trinity is likewise a non-point.

and ....mate.

 

[Runningman]

Let's go to what is staggeringly clear, which passage admits of no unbelieving "interpertation" apart from its plain wording, and from which the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is taken.

"In the beginning was (past tense, existed before the beginning) the Word,
and the Word was with God (distinct from the Father, two persons here),
and the Word was God (the same God whom he was with, the one God)
through whom all things are made (this Word is Creator, Col 1:16-20),
in whom was life ( the Word is the life, Jn 14:6) and
which life was the light of men, which the darkness has not (present tense) understood.

There is no mention of a being called the "word" or "Son of God" in Genesis. This is referring to a thing, not a person, called the logos. It means a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy. God isn't simply a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy and neither is Jesus. God is a Spirit, a person, omniscient, omnipotent. Therefore, you're making a mistake with your interpretation of John 1 and I will clarify more for you.

Start with 1 John 1:1-2, that refers to the "word (logos) of life" as an it. Jesus isn't an it.

Next, you should also consider a few more points such as that in John 1:1 the absence of the article (“the”) before “God” in the Greek makes the word “God” qualitative, which can be understood as “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it was godly. God isn't an it. The correct way to understand this is that the "word was what God was..." i.e, godly.

Keep reading. John 1:9 says the True Light gives light to all men. John 1:30 calls Jesus a man. Therefore Jesus isn't the True Light who gives light to himself in accordance with he isn't God. John 17:3 is still there informing you only the Father is the true God.

The Word ( who was God) became flesh and dwelled among us. (Jn 1:1, 14)

Keeping in mind that to the Greeks (Gentiles of the area to whom John was writing) logos was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe. John opens his gospel with the astounding declaration that the recently despised and crucified Jewish "criminal," the carpenter, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

That means God created Jesus. If Jesus was "God incarnate" as you seem to be suggesting then he would actually be God and also he would know what God does. He didn't know everything God did nor did they have the same wills. There is your big red flag you have indeed misunderstood who Jesus is.

 

[Runningman]

Do you believe Jesus is God as the NT apostles do (Jn 1:1, 14, Tit 2:13)?

No one in the Bible believes Jesus is God.

Do you believe that the only true God is the Father just as Jesus said? John 17:3

 

[Runningman]

The atheism is not his.

There is only one God, the true God, in three persons in only one name (singular, Mt 28:19).

John 17:3 says the only true God is the Father. Your verse does not say "God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

You have no explicit verses about your trinity religion existing in scripture. However, I can easily prove Unitarianism using John 17:3 and a ton of other verses.

 

[Runningman]

Then God never said he was Trinity is likewise a non-point.

God never said He wasn't a cheese pizza either. What you're using is a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. No wonder you're so confused.

 

[Runningman]

She mentions it in relation to your supposed rebuttal of her assertion along the lines of, "The Bible doesn't say outright, 'x,y,z'."

The Bible continually calls God sovereign repeatedly. On the other hand, there is no such mention of a trinity. We shouldn't just invent ideas because the Bible didn't say not to.

Off topic, I have some cool pictures of a stand-out pine tree, locally called, "The Running Man", in my old stomping grounds; you are welcome to use one for an avatar, so you don't get confused with anyone else whose handle begins with R.

Well, thank you. I appreciate you showing me those pictures. That's very thoughtful of you.

 

[Eleanor]

There is no mention of a being called the "word" or "Son of God" in Genesis.

I feel sorry for them, so glad the NT apostles of Jesus Christ are my authority.
It's the New Covenant now.

 

[Eleanor]

No one in the Bible believes Jesus is God.
Do you believe that the only true God is the Father just as Jesus said? John 17:3

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Eleanor]

John 17:3 says the only true God is the Father. Your verse does not say "God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

You have no explicit verses about your trinity religion existing in scripture. However, I can easily prove Unitarianism using John 17:3 and a ton of other verses.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Eleanor]

God never said He wasn't a cheese pizza either. What you're using is a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. No wonder you're so confused.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Runningman]

Looking for a response to my posts that isn't intellectually lazy. If any one feels like answering go ahead.

 

[makesends]

Start with 1 John 1:1-2, that refers to the "word (logos) of life" as an it. Jesus isn't an it.

The Spirit is referred to as a "she". Does that give her personage? Of course not. It is the way with languages. Some nouns are masculine, some are feminine, some are neuter. It is no reflection on whether it (he, she) is actually a thing as opposed to a person. You really need to back off of being so adamant about things you don't understand.

Each person of the Trinity is a person on their own apart from what gender their nouns are given in the Greek or English or Hebrew.

 

[makesends]

God never said He wasn't a cheese pizza either. What you're using is a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. No wonder you're so confused.

Not at all. Neither I nor @Eleanor are arguing that because something isn't mentioned it is therefore a valid point. You are the one arguing that if it isn't mentioned it is NOT a valid point, and we are pointing out that the lack of specific mention does not render something invalid.

 

[makesends]

The Bible continually calls God sovereign repeatedly. On the other hand, there is no such mention of a trinity. We shouldn't just invent ideas because the Bible didn't say not to.

We are not "just invent[ing] ideas because the Bible didn't say not to." Really??

Well, thank you. I appreciate you showing me those pictures. That's very thoughtful of you.

You're welcome. I love a good pun or play on words, or whatever that is.