2nd Rebuttal (3b)
September 4th, 2010 by Marc Taylor
This is the sixth post in a moderated debate between Biblical Unitarian Danny Dixon and Trinitarian Marc Taylor. A complete list of posts can be accessed here.
1. Only begotten
a. NIDNTT: While genos is distantly related to gennan, beget, there is little linguistic justification for translating monogenes as “only begotten.” The latter practice originated with Jerome who translated it by the Lat. unigenitus to emphasize Jesus’ divine origin in answer to Arianism. The word monogenes reflects the Heb. yahid, only, precious [Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac], and is used in Heb. 11:17 of Isaac who was unique in the sense of being the sole son of promise, but who was not the only son whom Abraham begat. Perhaps the word may best be translated as “unique” (2:75-76, God – J. Stafford Wright).
b. TDNT: John’s conception of zwe as present is even more radical. This is connected with the fact that he traces the resurrection of Jesus to the fact that as the logos of God and the eternal Son of God He is life and has life in Himself, not merely as the power of His life as a living creature, but as the creative power of God. As a living creature He has a psuche and He gives it up to death (10:11, 15, 17), but His zwe is not interrupted by death (2:870, zaw – Bultmann).
c. TDNT: Speaking of the Apostle John it reads:
Yet for him Jesus is so uniquely God’s Son from all eternity that he always without exception uses tekna for believers, and they alone, never Jesus, are said to be born of God (8:390-391, hios – Schweizer) .
d. Vine: We can only rightly understand the term “the only begotten” when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. “The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not ‘after’ the Father” (Moule) (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, only begotten, page 812).
e. How Danny could insist on the term “begotten” is puzzling and even more so when the Greek word doesn’t teach what he hopes it does. Danny tells us that, “Father’s generate life, they beget sons”. Danny’s analogy fails in that as with sons every father had a point in time when they were created.
2. Acts 2:36
a. As with the appellation “the Son of God” in Romans 1:4, Acts 2:36 does not teach Christ was made “Lord” in the sense of being created. He was “appointed” these appellations based on His resurrection.
b.Thayer: to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything: tina kurion, Acts 2:36 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, poiew, page 525).
c. Thayer: for although Christ was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was openly appointed [A.V. declared] such among men by this transcendent and crowning event) (ibid., horizw, page 453).
3. John 1:1
a. I find it quite surprising that Danny would cite John 1:1 when this passage isn’t anywhere near conclusive in support of his position that the Lord Jesus is “a god”.
b. Mounce: But in Jn. 1:1, the logos is not only from God, but is God. According to John, this logos was in the beginning, was with God, and was God Himself (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Word, page 803).
c. NIDNTT: “In the beginning” – not “at the beginning” of Creation (Gen. 1:1), but in the “time before time” of divine eternity – was the Word (pre-existence of the Word, Jn. 1:1), the Word was with God (personal reference, Jn. 1:2), indeed, “the Word was God” (essential divinity of the Word, Jn. 1:1) (3:1115, Word – B. Klappert).
d. TDNT: Concerning the Logos it reads:
Here, then, that which is en arche is that which is “before” all time, or, more correctly, that concerning which no temporal statement can be made (1:482, arche – Delling).
e. Vine: it is usual to employ the article with a proper name, when mentioned a second time. There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon. or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun. A notable instance of this is in John 1:1, “and the Word was God;” here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, ‘a god was the Word,’ is entirely misleading. Moreover, that “the Word” is the subject of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is anarthrous (without the article) (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, God, page 490).
f. It should also be noted that the concept of agency as used by Danny to deny that Christ is God is specifically rejected. The NIDNTT reads, “The incarnation of the Word thus does not mean Jesus as the eschatological ambassador, in whom God is present and acting; it signifies the presence of God himself in the flesh” (3:1117, Word – B. Klappart).
4. John 17:5
a. The citation he gave to us by G. Abbot-Smith nowhere demonstrates that Christ is not the Almighty. What Danny refuses to accept is the fact that Christ eternally existed with the Father. He then chose to relinquish the right to always exercise His full power/authority when He came to the earth but as of His exaltation He has all power/authority once again.
On John 17:5:
b. Thayer: of God exalting, or rather restoring, Christ is his Son to a state of glory in heaven (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, doxazw, page 157).
c. Thayer: of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth: (where he is said to have been in the same condition before his incarnation, and even before the beginning of the world) (ibid., doxa, page 156).
d. TDNT: Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility, Mt. 11:29; 12:18-21; 2 C. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8 -> kenow 3, 661, 13-28, cf. the temptation of Jesus, Mt. 4:8 f. par. Lk. 4:5 f. Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.
A new situation is brought into being with the crucifixion and resurrection. The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (5:895, pas – Reicke).
e. TDNT: As glory is an attribute of God “before all eternity” (Jd. 25), so Jesus can say (Jn. 17:5, 24) that He possessed the divine glory even “before the foundation of the world” (6:687, pro – Reicke).
5. Psalm 110:1
Danny insists that I did not give a satisfactory response to this passage but when he simply asserts that Jesus is a lesser individual from Jehovah my response was satisfactory in that his brief comment was no more than an assertion without proof. In any event since the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH (cf. Genesis 48:16) adoni is applied to YHWH (cf. Judges 6:13). The Messenger of YHWH will be discussed further in my Second Constructive Statement.
If John 1:1 is refering to a sencond person of the trinity shouldn’t it read “before the beginning” not “in the beginning”?
How does the gospel of the kingdom of God even work if there is a trinity? If there was a son before the begining, why did God create man? If God created man and knew he was going to sin, why go through all of history? That is not love. But, if God was seeking people to walk in fellowship with him and throughout history we see people choosing to stand up and be God’s representative on Earth, even to the point that his own son (a man), would die as a sacrifice….That is a message. That is a plan. That is the word!
Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 18+ year reference work (as of 09/2010) in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially that of the third clause with “a god” as its rendering) entitled, “What About John 1:1?”
To learn more of its design and expected release date, we invite you to visit:
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
Agape, JohnOneOne.
Hi there, JohnOneOne
I’m certainly looking forward to that release. Please keep us posted regarding this.
One way or the other, John 1:1c is no text for the Trinitarian.
Jehovah willing, I’ll be critiquing an article by David Barron on his perceived errors of Socinianism. You will find it on this site, and if you want to, you can comment on it.
In Christ
Jaco
Just as God was in the beginning so too with Christ.
Marc, John 1:1 does not say “In the begining was Christ”. You are reading pre-existance theology back into the verse.
You continue to denounce Danny position based on what is not written and ignoring what is written. Does Jesus have a God? Yes! Does Jesus call him the “One True God (John 17:3)?” YES! Should we worship and serve and live our lives for the same God Jesus does? YES!
Does trinity theology encourage the worship and serving and living for the same God that Jesus does?
Why must the trinity theology confuse God’s word beyond what is clearly written?
I Corinthians 14:33 (a):
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace.
Marc:
In light of Frank’s question above, do you think that a person would actually perish eternally if he didn’t acknowledge Jesus as Yahweh? And if so, on what basis?
If you’d rather not answer here, I’ll forego and make it one of the five for the latter part of the debate.
Frank:
Do you think a Trinitarian will be damned (however you define it) if he insists on the doctrine that Jesus must be seen to be Almighty God?
Danny
Danny, That really is the crux of the question here. There is not a god who is a trinity and a God who is not. I believe John 17:3 and Romans 10:9-10 hold the truth to salvation. What God do you serve and who is Lord of yor life? Since God looks on the heart, he is the only one who can answer who the true followers of his son are. Sounds like cop out but I condemn no one.
I hold to the opinion that a person cannot go wrong if they love and serve the God Jesus prayed to.
And Frank:
Is it idolatry to pray, give latreuo to Jesus? Idolatry is a condemnable offense, you know.
Danny
Well, Danny, I guess that depends on what prayer is?
Is it Stephen called out to Jesus in Acts 7:
59And they stoned Stephen,
as he was calling upon the Lord and
saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit.†60And he kneeled down, and
cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do
not hold this sin against them.†And
when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Is it Paul thanking Jesus in 1 Timothy 1:
12I am always thanking him
who enabled me, that is, Christ Jesus
our Lord, because he counted me
faithful, appointing me to his
service,
There probably are other examples and I think depending on one’s beliefe in the trinity, it would influence if it was considered prayer. I do not call it prayer. I do not ‘pray’ to Jesus. I cannot find a verse that states to pray to Jesus. If I am incorrect, please let me know.
However, Jesus is our mediator. Shouldn’t we be talking to him? Is that prayer?
Frank,
I mean latreuo.
Danny
Frank,
I cited several lexicons that don’t see it your way.
Of course Jesus haa a God because he is also a man. John 17:3 has already been addressed.
The Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus is worshiped/prayed to as well.
Danny,
A person will perish eternally if they do not believe the Lord Jesus is God for they have a false Christ and a false Christ can not save anyone.
Marc
Marc, Do you have the same God that Jesus has?
John 20:17
Marc:
Marc:
Just wanted us to be clear on that as I was really wondering why it was such a big issue for you.
I, on the other hand, do not see that one’s having a mistaken understanding of the nature of God would, in and of itself, affect whether God would apply the benefits of Christ’s blood to that individual.
By the way, in your your 3a, Comment 5, you wished me “Peace” at the end of the note. What did you mean by that?
Fraternally,
Danny
Frank,
Yes I have the same God as Jesus does.
Danny,
The blood from a false Christ is powerless but the blood from the true Christ is salvific. In fact, John 17:3 reads that eternal life is knowing the only true God ,that is the Father. One can not know the Father in that they deny who the Son really is (1 John 2:23).
Marc:
Are you thinking that when John 17:3 says, “This is eternal life . . .” that it is talking about salvation?
1 John 2:23 says that one is not to deny the Son. I do not. It also says that one is to confess the Son, which I do?
The consequences affect the relationship that one has with the Father.
Are you saying that the particular relationship of the Son as being God is discussed in the letters of John (or maybe even the gospel) as having the consequence of losing relationship with the Father? I ask because the passages you mention do not have that specificity.
Just wanting to be clear.
Fraternally,
Danny
Danny,
But one must confess the biblical Son. And the “en arche” in 1 John 2:13 is:
that which is “before” all time, or , more correctly, that concerning which no temporal statemnet can be made (TDNT 2:484, arche -Delling).
In John 17:3 “eternal life” is talking about salvation.
“In the Fourth Gospel, the sending of Jesus is a firm foundation for the doctrine of salvation. One believes and recognizes God and him whom he has sent (John 17:3; cf. Num. 16:28) (NIDNTT 3:645, Son – Michel).
I believe a man will perish eternally if he will not believe Jesus is the Son of God.
If a Trinitarian believes Jesus is God, does he have a false Christ?
This is what concerns more than a few people, giving rise to question. Does he have a false Christ in mind? Does he have a false paradigm? It seems to me that a lot of people wonder about this and are not sure. It all seems so confusing.
So why would a man hold his doctrine so high and be so quick to ignore what it does to others? Is it a right thing to do?
Should a Trinitarian say, “I choose to view God, Jesus, and the spirit of God this way, but do not insist all others need to in order to be saved.”?
Is it wrong if a man say, “I hold to the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God, but do not limit another’s liberty to compare him with God in a metaphor.”?
Is the Trinity doctrine a strange fire that God has not ordained for the church? Is that why so much trouble seems to surround it?
Does God necessarily require all his children to bow to it in order to be born again and receive his spirit, if not, why not?
Good day,
Regarding Luke 1:35 and the extra-biblical concept of “eternal Son,†Adam Clarke has this to say:
We may plainly perceive here that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of God to the divine nature of Christ, but to the holy person or thing, to hagion, which was to be born of the Virgin, by the energy of the holy spirit…Here I trust that I may be permitted to say, with all due respect to those who differ from me that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons. 1. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it. 2. If Christ is the Son of God as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal: for son implies father, and father implies the idea of generation, and generation implies a time in which it was effected and time also antecedent to such generation. 3. If Christ is the Son of God as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him. 4. Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time, i.e., there was a period in which it did not exist and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord and robs him at once of his Godhead. 5. To say that he was begotten from all eternity is in my opinion absurd, and the phrase eternal son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time. Son supposes time, generation and Father: and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these tow terms Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. Clarke’s Commentary (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837)
Nathaniel Emmons of Yale (1745-1850) declared that “‘eternal generation’ is eternal nonsense.”
Trinitarian J.O. Buswell, former Dean of the Graduate School, Covenant College, St, Louis, MO..
“The notion that the Son was begotten by the Father in eternity past, not as an event, but as an inexplicable relationship, has been accepted and carried along in the Christian theology since the fourth century…We have examined all the instances in which ‘begotten’ or ‘born’ or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with confidence that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about ‘begetting’ as an eternal relationship, between the Father and the Son. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Zondervan, 1962, p. 110.
Luke 1:35 has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in preexistence [Trinitarian] theology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s Son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a Christology; conception is causally related to divine Sonship for him. Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 291
Mr. Taylor, it is one thing to say that Jesus Christ is the Unique Son of God. But it is a fallacious leap to ascribe his uniqueness to his “eternality,†instead of what Scripture ascribes it to. No proof here.
Secondly, the concept conveyed by the Father/Son anthropomorphism is one of inequality in time, glory and ability. Scripture tells us that YHWH had no beginning, hence your statement, “every father had a point in time when they were created,†being utterly reductionistic in that the Heavenly Father is never depicted as a son of anyone else. No proof here.
This by definition refutes one of the tenets of the Trinity. God is Lord (Adonai) by definition. If someone else made him such, He requires a Higher Power, or Bestower of Authority to do exactly that. No amount of linguistic/logical acrobatics can refute this.
Re John 1:1:
The Trinitarian scholars you cite only repeat what the ancient Councils post-biblically determined on the “essence†and “nature†of God. You’ll have to show from Scripture that “in the beginning†implies “eternity.†To cite scholars who erroneously equate ‘ho theos’ with the anarthrous predicate ‘theos’ is just that: erroneous. If this debate turns out to be a ping-pong game of scholars vs. scholars, what’s the use? Bring solid Scriptural evidence to the table, please.
Re John 17:5
Where’s your proof for his “eternal existence?†Even with the notion of “restoring to previous glory,†you have to prove that that glory is glory belonging to God Almighty. One of your sources says:
“Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.â€
You will have to prove that the declarations in passages like John 17:5 excludes the possibility of ideal prolepsis also it those cases!
Re Psalm 110:1
To Trinitarians, YHWH = Father + Son + Holy Ghost. Here in Ps 110:1, Adonai, YHWH, says to someone else to sit at His right hand. This indicates that Almighty God spoke to and appointed someone else, lacking authority (else, why the appointment?), distinct from God Almighty.
For your rather novel invention, namely, that the messenger is YHWH Himself, you’ll have to refute the notion of sh’liach as a necessary conclusion also in this case.
Ex. 23:20 has two characters in view, namely Jehovah and His angel: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions; because my name is within him.â€
Yes, we have addressed John 17:3 and the explanation you gave proved to be lacking any serious value. You will have to prove that Jesus is something else beyond the second prototype of Man (1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Tim 2:5). Please provide evidence for your unique understanding of biblical anthropology. Whatever else Jesus is, him acknowledging the True God as someone else, and excluding anyone else by adding “only,†(you admitted yourself that anyone else claiming this position must be false gods) Jesus cannot be the One he points out to be the Only True God, Jehovah.
Just a question, Mr Taylor, do you believe that Jesus had to be God to redeem us of our sins, as Anselm proposed?
The Trinitarian concept prevents no one whatsoever to declare that Jesus is God of the Father!
Regards,
Jaco
1. No proof for the only-begotten”? I cited several lexicons as proof.
2. Scholars versus scholars is part of my point in John 1:1 and concerning “only-begotten”. As one asserting this assertion is nowhere near airtight at all.
3. John 17:5 – before the foundation of the world. World stand for the universe. Anything that was before the creation of the universe is eternal.
4. The Messenger of YHWH is YHWH – proof is coming in my next Constructive.
5. Yes Jesus had to be God to deliver us from our sins.
6. You never responded to debating me on whether or not Christ properly receives prayer/worship.
I suppose we could draw a triangle and write Peter, Paul, and Mary at each of it’s points, and inside the triangle write the word salt.
…Now Peter is not Paul, nor is Mary Peter, but each of them are salt and together they are the salt of the earth.
Does that basicly explain the doctrine of the Trinity or not?
No for more than just three people are the salt of the earth.
Guys:
Do please leave ME something to debate Marc on in MY way! I am not a Socinian strictly. I am not an Arian strictly. I am not a biblical Unitarian (essentially Socinian). The way I use some
scriptures that I will propose as favorable to my position may seem to support one or more of either of those named perspectives. But I assure you, particularly my non-Trinitarian brothers particularly, that I will be put in no man’s box. I am content to debate Marc between now and October 2. Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight to ask Sean to allow a “clean” debate, that is, one where Marc andd I are debating each other’s points only.
It is distracting and counterproductive, in my opinion as to what Marc and I are doing here,for either of us to have to deal with the individual agendas of some who post here. For Marc I think it means he is pressured (though by no means is obligated!) to conduct two or more debates. He has made clear that he is willing to debate in an extended contest with others on a point that I have already conceded, albeit for different reasons: I have no problem rendering latreuo worship to one made in the eikon/morphe of God whom God has said can receive glory (John 5:23). Maybe I may agree to debate a Socinian, later, on the topic: The pre-human existence of Christ for any length of time is impossible. Affir: A competent Socinian. Deny: Danny André Dixon. But I have no interest in engaging in that short debate here.
Let Marc and I debate. Please limit your comments to an analysis of what we are doing, and stop using the Comments section as a soundibg board to feign support of me when you know you know you hold my position to be as unlikely (and maybe as damnable and idolatrous) as you think Marc’s view is.
I think I would appeal to the Moderator to control posts that violate the purpose of this strict discussion during the remainder of the debate; the substance of alternative perspectives to my own have been competently expressed, and I really don’t want the “help.”
Danny
P.S.: it is possible that Marc does not share my concern. If I have implied that he does I apologize and will endure what he would also permit as to the substance of future comments.
Mr Taylor
I cited scholars taking the opposing stance. What’s the point of having a “battle of the scholars?” You’ll say the scholars I cite are wrong. I’ll say yours is wrong. The difference is, Mr Taylor, we Unitarians are the only ones actually producing arguments instead of quoting Trinitarian scholars.
Your scholars provide their opinion without elaborating on their apparatus for arriving at their conclusion(s). You, instead, require us to provide hard evidence. Sorry, that’s double standards.
Sorry, but you’re evading my question. If Jesus could refer to the authority he “received” (past tense) in a proleptic sence, why did he not have his glory “before the world was” also in a proleptic sense? That fits with biblical anthropology, but not your post-biblical theology. Evidence, please.
Secondly, where is the evidence that everything before the creation of the universe is eternal?
Job 38:7 “When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause”
The angels were clearly spectators in God’s creation of the Universe. According to you, Mr Taylor, they were eternal…
We will be awaiting your information. I hope you’ll provide as evidence something more substantial than the parroting of demonstrably interpretive lexicons.
Scriptural evidence, please.
Thank you for the challenge. I will most definitely consider, not only my time in doing so, but also the quality of your debate here overall, the latter as primary indicator of whether debating you will be worth my time.
In Christ,
Jaco
Correction in my Comment 23 above
As regards John 5:23, substitue “honor” for the word “glory” in the sentence.
Danny
Danny,
I took note of your post above. I apologise from my part for any interference in your debate.
The stage is yours! 🙂
Jaco
Danny, Marc, I too apologize for being a distraction to your ongoing debate. I will take notes and ask questions at a more appropriate time.
In Christ,
Frank
Hello Marc,
You wrote:
This brings up an interesting question that I have always wondered about the trinity:
“How do we know that there are just three people who are YHWH?â€
Or we could say:
“On what basis do we say there are only 3 persons in the Godhead?â€
Maybe there are four. For example: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Angel of YHWH.
Maybe there are five: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Angel of YWHW, and Wisdom.
Maybe is a fourth… or tenth person in the Godhead who has not yet been revealed and will be revealed at some future date.
Is there any scriptural justification to limiting God to only 3 persons?
And if God is limited to 3 persons, can He still be infinite (i.e. not-limited)?
Danny and everyone else,
I am not going to limit (nor can I w/o completely banning someone) people’s comments on the debate. My only rules for dialog are as follows (copied from our “Communication Policy” –see tab above):
Other than this, this is an open forum and people are free to say what is on their minds. You and Marc are under no obligation to respond to any comments whatsoever. Your only responsibility is to participate in the official debate. I hope this makes sense.
Re Sean at Comment 29
Sean
Fair enough.
Danny
Danny (msg. 23)
You said, “Stop using the Comments section as a sounding board to feign support of me when you know you know you hold my positions to be as unlikely (and maybe as damnable and idolatrous) as you think Mark’s view is.”
I don’t think it is accurate (or fair) for you to claim that anyone here is feigning support of you. We really agree with many of the points you are making. I have already told you we have several regular bloggers on this site that believe in the pre-existence of Yeshua/Jesus. Although the majority here disagree with them, and will tell them so, to my knowledge no one has ever said they would be damned for their beliefs or that they were idolatrous.
We just tell them what we believe and why we believe it. Not long ago we had a discussion about whether sincere Trinitarians, who try their best to follow the teachings of God, would jeopardize their salvation with their Trinitarian beliefs. Not one person on this site seemed to believe that a sincere Trinitarian would jeopardize their salvation solely because of their Trinitarian beliefs.
We are not like Marc and these other Trinitarians that say if you disagree with our opinion on the Trinity then you cannot attain salvation. Yeshua/Jesus talks about how angry God gets when people (especially religious leaders) teach human precepts/opinions as if they were the doctrines of God.
In Mathew 15:7-9 Yeshua/Jesus says, “You Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’..”
A doctrine from God is something like in Mark 12:28-29 where one of the scribe asks Yeshua/Jesus “…..’Which commandment is the most important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’..”
All Trinitarians agree with us that this statement above is a doctrine/commandment that comes directly from God. That’s the reason they try to make the nonsensical claim that God is indeed really one, but at the same time he is also 3 distinct and separate individuals.
The fact is there is no scripture anywhere that says, ‘The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really one person (God).’ This statement is nothing but a post biblical opinion and should not be taught as if it were a doctrine from God. At least in my humble opinion anywaze…
Thomas,
Couldn’t have said it any better…
Jaco
DT and Jaco:
I could accept such a statement if inferentially derived if it were a necessary inference. Even the passages that are presented seem to me to be capable of more than one inference, thus my puzzlement as to why someone would be condemned for not embracing someone’s inference when others are possible.
Danny
Danny
comment 33 ,could you put that in laymans terms for us so at least i can be clear what you are saying.
Thomas
I agree with your last post
Re Robert Comment 34
I wrote:
A necessary inference is a conclusion that, in the normal usage of language, must be deduced from available data (i.e. information). Example:
Coffee boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit and at a rather quick measurable rate cools to room temperature. If I walk into a room and observe a cup of coffee on the table and the measurable temperature is very close to 212 degrees Fahrenheit, it is necessary to infer that the coffee has recently been poured (assuming no other agent has been introduced to either slow the cooling process or to reheat an already cooled cup of coffee.
Example of a biblical conclusion that, in the normal usage of language is necessarily inferred:
When one reads John 1:1, in the normal usage of language, the first occurrence of the word “God†must be identified as someone or something other than The Logos that the Logos was with, and the second occurrence of the word “God†in John 1:1 must be something other than what it meant in the first occurrence.
Re Comment 31
DT:
You are right. I do not have information that would allow me to draw the conclusion that I did, and I apologize
Danny
Karl, (Re #38)
It takes discipline to be a Trinitarian.
Danny
I didnt need a definition of to infer, i need you to clarify what you said using normal everyday words to make sure i understood what you was saying.
I have never understood why people think they need to use uncommon language when there is everyday language that would work better .
I could use big words but choose to try to keep it simple.
So please explain your statement in laymen terms without the grammar lesson and failed science. Last tme i boiled coffe it boiled at 211.4 F where i live.
When I read John 1:1, it seems to me that the Word that was with God is the Word that the Word was with, just as much as the Word was with God.
The same God that the Word was with in the beginning seems to me to be the same God that is God over all, even over the Word itself.
It seems to me that both uses of the word “God” in John 1:1 are speaking of the same person.
Though I use the word “Word” to refer to Jesus at times, or use the same word (Word) to speak of God, I can be speaking of the same Word in both instances.
I think I have the liberty in Christ to do so.
Danny
On behalf of all of us that support you in the debate, I thank you for the apology. I understand on most sites the debates and discussions get rather belligerent and insulting. This site is different in that the moderators keep a tight control on personal attacks. There might be a few people here that have a problem with your Arian-like beliefs, but I think the majority are willing to accept all Unitarians regardless of their beliefs.
I can see how some scriptures might lead someone to come to your beliefs. I guess it all comes down to personal opinion (interpretation) in the end.
Shalom…
Here’s a question I’d like to ask. It might be worth considering.
Is the Trinity doctrine an example of men going beyond what is written in the scriptures?
Here’s another:
Is it a violation of I Cor 4:6?
Here is I Cor 4:6 from the 1599 Geneva:
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratvely applied unto mine own self and Apollos, for your sakes, that ye might learn by us, that no man presume above that which is written, that one swell
not against another for any man’s cause.
The verse before is talking about judging nothing before the time for the Lord will shed light upon everything that is hid in darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts of men. Then all men will have praise of God.
Though we are warned that we judge not, we are admonished to judge ourselves to presume not above that which is written…etc.
“When one reads John 1:1, in the normal usage of language, the first occurrence of the word “God†must be identified as someone or something other than The Logos that the Logos was with, and the second occurrence of the word “God†in John 1:1 must be something other than what it meant in the first occurrence.”
Danny
this line of reasoning doesnt make the least bit of sense, the word was God because the word was God’s.
As a biblical unitarian I have not the least bit of problem with John 1 when taken in full context that when the Holy spirit indwells a person God’s word becomes flesh like it did in the flesh of Jesus at his baptism making Jesus the Son of God just like we all become the Son of God IF we are indwelled.
Robert, Re: 41
So long as Theos is qualitatively understood (“and the word was a god” or “and the word was divine”) fine. But in the Bible, Theos means the Father. If the word Theos inherently meant “that which is begotten of God the Father” I could agree with you. But that’s not what it means anywhere in the Bible or in all of the occurrences of Greek literature that I’m aware of (No I haven’t read it all), unless it means it right here in John 1:1.
Danny
Danny
I am sorry but you must be mixed up because Theos most definitly isnt translated Father anywhere inside the bible or out.
Robert:
Maybe a bit of clarity is in order. I’m sorry, but I see that I didn’t say . In reference to John 1:1, when I’ve got, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was “with em>Theos/em>,†I said that it em>meant/em> the Father, not that it was “translated” so. We are looking for coherrent meaning in context.
I think about how the Word was “with God.†While there are probably a very few suggestions about what a phrase like that means, and while my short list might be suggestive, I think that in the context, the Father would be the most likely candidate with whom “The Word†would have been.
Don’t you agree. If not, what is your understanding and justification for your understanding of the meaning of the sentence “The Word was with God.”
Danny
Danny
You made a full implication that THEOS meant Father and went on to claim it was that way in all greek literature that you have read.Now you try to explain that is not what you meant.
I am sorry but your are losing creditabilty with me very rapidly.
“Don’t you agree. If not, what is your understanding and justification for your understanding of the meaning of the sentence “The Word was with God.†”
Danny my understanding of the word is that it originates from God therefore God .
thru out the OT we see the Holy Spirit or Angel that brought the message(word) to the prophets and John 1 is just descibing that the Word of God was going to come to Jesus via the indwelling of the Holy spirit in the flesh.
This indwelling of the Holy spirit makes Us the sons of God if we receive IT and the product of this indwelling is the Word of God
RE 45 above
Robert, you write as follows:
It is very important in discussions like this to be precise in terminology. Your previous observation was that I had “translated†Theos as “the Father.†All I wanted to do was to clarify that in the context one needs to understand that, in the first instance of Theos, the Almighty or the Father is meant. This was my intention in asking about “your understanding and justification for your understanding of the meaning of the sentence “The Word was with God.'”
Robert, you continue as follows:
I think your statement is a bit does not center on what I mean for when I ask, “what is your understanding and justification for your understanding of the meaning of the sentence ‘The Word was with God?’†I was not asking, in the first part of that question, what is the origin of the Word. The question had to do with the meaning of the sentence that the Word was “with God.†It is the answer to that question that takes on significance relative to things I am discussion.
I have said repeatedly in my presentations that I believe that the Word “originates from God†although I would say that the Word, therefore is to be understood as “a god†or “divine†qualitatively. To make the word Theos “God†without clearly indicating that “God†is not to be taken in its ordinary lexical sense, could lead people to make unfounded conclusions.
Theos with the Trinitarians means, either “the Father†specifically, or “the Trinity†in general. So I do not disagree with where you end up, that is, that Theos has qualitative connotations with the term having to do with essence or ontology (being or nature). In that sense, then, I don’t differ with your phraseology “originates from God.†But it is very important in John 1:1 that the understanding of origin be associated with the second occurrence of the word Theos.
In the first instance, to say that “the Word was with God†is not to say that “the Word†was present with divinities in general, but that the Word was with Theos meaning Almighty God as an individual. When it says in the second part of the sentence “and the Word was God†it should be understood that the Word has its orgins with God and is, qualitatively speaking, therefore of the same nature as God—the Word is “a god†or the Word is “divine.†I am sorry that I am losing credibility with you, but that doesn’t mean that I need to waffle on what I am saying.
.
Robert, you write that throughout
Are you saying that the Old Testament Angel (not sure what you mean exactly) is the Holy Spirit, and are you saying that this is prophetic of the Holy Spirit being the cause of Jesus’ birth? I do agree that it is precisely because of the Holy Spirit that Jesus comes to have birth as a human individual (Luke 1:35), but I am not quite sure that this is what you are saying.
Also I do believe that God’s holy spirit is what a person receives when that believer accepts that Jesus is the Messiah and responds in obedience to the message (Acts 2:36-38). Shorthand for that process would be to say that “those who received him, who believed in his name, may be called ‘sons [and daughters] of God†(John 1:12).
I am simply trying to be precise, Robert.
Danny
“It is very important in discussions like this to be precise in terminology. Your previous observation was that I had “translated†Theos as “the Father.†”
Danny
When you sais Theos in John 1 meant the Father ,it is nothing other than the claim it should be translated that way.
Theos translates as god because that is what it means, there is no other meaning. when it is Yahweh it is speaking of we capitalize it to seperate its use.
If the Father was what it meant then it would have the word for Father
“Are you saying that the Old Testament Angel (not sure what you mean exactly) is the Holy Spirit,”
Danny
No, I am saying the word was deliverd by angels or the Holy spirit even though if it was the Holy spirit as the messenger than the Holy spirit could be called an Angel but not viceversa.
“and are you saying that this is prophetic of the Holy Spirit being the cause of Jesus’ birth? I do agree that it is precisely because of the Holy Spirit that Jesus comes to have birth as a human individual (Luke 1:35), but I am not quite sure that this is what you are saying”
Danny
I dont know how the Holy spirit caused Joseph’s seed to be formed in Mary but John1 is not a birth narrative, it is about Jesus receiving the Holy spirit at his baptism
Re 47
Robert:
Thanks for clearing up your perspective.
Danny