Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why is the Trinity an essential to there even being a God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Super Cow View Post
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    The Logos was both "with God" (vs. 1, 2) and being "was God" (vs. 1, 3). What "was God" is not what changed. God has no parts though the three Persons are Him, the one indivisible God.
    This is going to probably seem like a question that should have an obvious answer, but what proof is there that "Logos" is referring to Jesus?

    Logos translates to "word", but also to any of "thought, speech, meaning, reason, proportions, principle, standard, or logic". None of these translations seems to imply a distinct entity or individual. Now I understand the interpretation is supported by John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

    However, it would seem more natural for John to use a different Greek noun or pronoun in the start of his gospel, if he intended this. Therefore it must be a somewhat metaphorical reference to Jesus bringing the word of God to humanity. But if it is metaphorical, then John 1 could alternatively imply that God's overarching principles of love, justice, power are timeless are timeless from the beginning, always with God and always part of God. (John 1:1,2) They could not be delivered perfectly to mankind without the mediation of God's anointed only-begotten son. (John 1:14)

    If it was understood in this way, then in John 1:3, a reference to the generic "him", would not be necessary to reference the Logos, but possibly God.
    In John's prologue he introduces the Logos commonly translated as the Word. As being "with God" v.1 and v.2, and having the nature of God as "was God." Verse 3 is often understood to refer to the Logos as God. It does without question refer to God. v.10 ". . . He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. . . ." again identifies Him as the Creator. Vs.11-12 identifies Him as Jesus based on v.14 and context of John taken on the whole. Isaiah wrote, ". . . that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- 43:10-11.

    The LORD is One and has no parts. Yet all three Persons are identified as that One LORD. In Isaiah 43:10, the word translated God is not the common plural form used but the singular.

    John 1:18, ". . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]."

    This accords with Jesus' words, ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; . . ." -- John 14:9.

    Isaiah wrote, ". . . Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- 6:5.

    To which John wrote speaking of Jesus, ". . . These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. . . ." -- John 12:41. (Isaiah 6:9 - John 12:40).

    It is not just a few verses. There are more references.
    Last edited by 37818; 04-06-2016, 11:07 PM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      In John's prologue he introduces the Logos commonly translated as the Word. As being "with God" v.1 and v.2, and having the nature of God as "was God." Verse 3 is often understood to refer to the Logos as God.
      Ignore for the time being what other non-apostolic humans say they understand about the Logos. That is an interpretation. And though it may be the correct interpretation, there are other ways you could interpret a literal reading of the text. We have several distinct entities in this chapter, and the question is why John would want to raise confusion.

      a) the Word/Logos - Mentioned in verse 1, 2, & 14.
      b) God - Translated from the Greek θεόν or θεὸς
      c) John (the Baptist) - Clearly a human
      d) the Light - Either Jesus or a reference to Jesus' message.

      It is interesting that most of the time God is translated from θεόν, except at the end of 1:1..."the Logos was θεὸς [god]". Interestingly, the other place where θεὸς is used is in 1:18, but is translated as "the only begotten θεὸς [Son]" I always am skeptical of interpretations that rely on questionable translations to hold up.

      But I still see the reading as vague with all the references to "him", as I could easily understand him=the Word or him=God.

      Why does John (the author) not clarify the text in verse 7-9, and say John (the baptist) came "to bear witness of the Logos", and in 8 "He was not the Logos, but was sent to bear witness of the Logos". Would that not be more clear?

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      It does without question refer to God. v.10 ". . . He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. . . ." again identifies Him as the Creator.
      In this case, "him" is clear in that it refers to the "Light", not the "Logos". Unless again, if the Light refers to revealing of the word/gospel of God. This is not consequential if you believe Light=Word=Logos, but the confusion I mentioned above still exists.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Vs.11-12 identifies Him as Jesus based on v.14 and context of John taken on the whole. Isaiah wrote, ". . . that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour." -- 43:10-11.

      The LORD is One and has no parts. Yet all three Persons are identified as that One LORD. In Isaiah 43:10, the word translated God is not the common plural form used but the singular.
      Isaiah referencing God as singular would seem to be a refutation of your argument, but the Trinity is a deviation from the question.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      John 1:18, ". . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]."

      This accords with Jesus' words, ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; . . ." -- John 14:9.
      So no man has seen God, but if you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father, but typically the answer to Moses experience from God, that no man may see his face and live, is that man can see God the son, but not God the Father.

      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Isaiah wrote, ". . . Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- 6:5.

      To which John wrote speaking of Jesus, ". . . These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. . . ." -- John 12:41. (Isaiah 6:9 - John 12:40).

      It is not just a few verses. There are more references.
      I'm not sure how this applies to my question.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        No, it is no more of an assertion from the perspective Christianity nor Judaism. it is the view of Judaism based on Old Testament scripture that the belief in an incarnate God is heresy. We are taking about differences in beliefs based on scripture of the OT.
        there actually is no passage that says that.
        Metacrock's Blog


        The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

        The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

        Comment


        • #49
          Well if God is not triune, then love is a created thing & not a characteristic of God. In eternity past the Father, Son, Holy Spirit always loved each other. Love is a characteristic of God, like everything else that is good.

          This must be the case if God is love, because God does not change.
          Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8

          And again, if God is not triune. He existed in a state where he did not love & changed when he created things.
          Bible Questions on The Theology QA.

          "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you Matthew" 7:7

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Super Cow View Post
            Ignore for the time being what other non-apostolic humans say they understand about the Logos. That is an interpretation. And though it may be the correct interpretation, there are other ways you could interpret a literal reading of the text. We have several distinct entities in this chapter, and the question is why John would want to raise confusion.

            a) the Word/Logos - Mentioned in verse 1, 2, & 14.
            b) God - Translated from the Greek θεόν or θεὸς
            c) John (the Baptist) - Clearly a human
            d) the Light - Either Jesus or a reference to Jesus' message.

            It is interesting that most of the time God is translated from θεόν, except at the end of 1:1..."the Logos was θεὸς [god]". Interestingly, the other place where θεὸς is used is in 1:18, but is translated as "the only begotten θεὸς [Son]" I always am skeptical of interpretations that rely on questionable translations to hold up.

            But I still see the reading as vague with all the references to "him", as I could easily understand him=the Word or him=God.

            Why does John (the author) not clarify the text in verse 7-9, and say John (the baptist) came "to bear witness of the Logos", and in 8 "He was not the Logos, but was sent to bear witness of the Logos". Would that not be more clear?



            In this case, "him" is clear in that it refers to the "Light", not the "Logos". Unless again, if the Light refers to revealing of the word/gospel of God. This is not consequential if you believe Light=Word=Logos, but the confusion I mentioned above still exists.



            Isaiah referencing God as singular would seem to be a refutation of your argument, but the Trinity is a deviation from the question.



            So no man has seen God, but if you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father, but typically the answer to Moses experience from God, that no man may see his face and live, is that man can see God the son, but not God the Father.



            I'm not sure how this applies to my question.
            Maybe I do not understand your question. You might restate it for clarity.

            ". . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. . . ." -- John 1:14.

            ". . . and his name is called The Word of God. . . ." -- Revelation 19:13.

            ". . . and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. . . ." -- John 1:1-2.
            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Maybe I do not understand your question. You might restate it for clarity.

              ". . . and his name is called The Word of God. . . ." -- Revelation 19:13.
              Thanks, Revelation 19 provides the clarification I was searching for. It works as it is also translated from Logos, and is also authored (traditionally) by John. I don't think the context of that scripture could refer to anyone but Jesus. (albeit in heavenly form) I think I can dispense with that lingering question.
              Last edited by Super Cow; 04-10-2016, 01:19 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                there actually is no passage that says that.
                Source: Isaiah 45:5 New International Version (NIV)



                5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
                apart from me there is no God.
                I will strengthen you,
                though you have not acknowledged me,

                Numbers 23:19

                19 God is not human, that he should lie,
                not a human being, that he should change his mind.
                Does he speak and then not act?
                Does he promise and not fulfill?

                © Copyright Original Source

                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #53
                  The bible does not support that. Judaism today does not derive all its theology from the OT, but they have external "traditions".

                  Isaiah 9:6
                  For to us a child is born,
                  to us a son is given;
                  and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
                  and his name shall be called
                  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
                  Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

                  btw number 23 s referring to man's sin nature "lie", which is irrelevant because Jesus knew no sin being fully man & fully God.
                  Bible Questions on The Theology QA.

                  "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you Matthew" 7:7

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    & there is actually much more on this in the OT.

                    Psalm 2
                    I will tell of the decree:
                    The LORD said to me, “You are my Son;
                    today I have begotten you.
                    Bible Questions on The Theology QA.

                    "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you Matthew" 7:7

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by flowers92 View Post
                      & there is actually much more on this in the OT.

                      Psalm 2
                      I will tell of the decree:
                      The LORD said to me, “You are my Son;
                      today I have begotten you.
                      Speaking of the bodily resurrection of His Son (Acts 13:33).
                      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by flowers92 View Post
                        The bible does not support that. Judaism today does not derive all its theology from the OT, but they have external "traditions".

                        Isaiah 9:6
                        For to us a child is born,
                        to us a son is given;
                        and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
                        and his name shall be called
                        Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
                        Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

                        btw number 23 s referring to man's sin nature "lie", which is irrelevant because Jesus knew no sin being fully man & fully God.
                        Isaiah 9:6 is another of those scriptures with a disputed translation. The Septuagint says "Mighty One", not "Mighty God".

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Super Cow View Post
                          Isaiah 9:6 is another of those scriptures with a disputed translation. The Septuagint says "Mighty One", not "Mighty God".
                          The Greek is a translation and not the God-breathed Hebrew as given (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
                          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Super Cow View Post
                            Isaiah 9:6 is another of those scriptures with a disputed translation. The Septuagint says "Mighty One", not "Mighty God".
                            Fair enough, I had no clue

                            but what about this:

                            Matthew 22:41-46
                            Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,
                            saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”

                            He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
                            “‘The Lord said to my Lord,

                            “Sit at my right hand,
                            until I put your enemies under your feet”’?
                            If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
                            And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.


                            Jesus asks how can King David call the messiah lord if he is his son?.... because the messiah is God himself (the only conclusion.... they even stopped asking him questions lol)
                            Bible Questions on The Theology QA.

                            "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you Matthew" 7:7

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              One of the reasons I dislike arguing Trinity is that it invariably devolves into word games with people arguing the intent of the author who is now dead. Look at what the Pharisees are arguing vs. how Jesus is answering.

                              Originally posted by flowers92 View Post
                              Matthew 22:41-46
                              Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,
                              saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”
                              The Pharisees deny that Jesus is the messiah, stating that he is an ordinary man who's distant ancestor is King David.

                              Originally posted by flowers92 View Post
                              He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
                              “‘The Lord said to my Lord,

                              “Sit at my right hand,
                              until I put your enemies under your feet”’?
                              If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
                              Jesus quotes Psalms 110:1 as evidence of the divinity of the Messiah. Now the first thing that should stand out in this scripture is the strange English translation of the text "The Lord said to my Lord". In Hebrew Lord [יְהוָ֨ה] said to my Lord [לַֽאדֹנִ֗י]. I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I know the first is actually the Tetragrammaton form of God's name YHWH (or Yahweh), and the second is a title. David gives the messiah the title Lord. It gets confused when translated into Greek (Septuagint where Jesus is quoting from), because the Septuagint authors never translated God's name into Greek. (And except for 4 places, the King James never translated it into English) Since Jesus is given the title of Lord to us all, I see no problem with this chapter in Matthew.

                              Originally posted by flowers92 View Post
                              And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

                              Jesus asks how can King David call the messiah lord if he is his son?.... because the messiah is God himself (the only conclusion.... they even stopped asking him questions lol)
                              Note that most of Matthew 22 involved the legal debating between the Sadducees, and later the Pharisees against Jesus. They stopped asking him questions because he was besting them on each occasion and this just happened to be the final question of the day.
                              Last edited by Super Cow; 04-13-2016, 11:48 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                The Greek is a translation and not the God-breathed Hebrew as given (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
                                The Hebrew we have available to us is not the God-breathed Hebrew either. It, like everything we have is a copy of a copy of a copy...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Christianbookworm, 12-17-2020, 03:35 PM
                                4 responses
                                44 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Christianbookworm  
                                Started by Seeker, 08-19-2019, 10:12 AM
                                99 responses
                                19,566 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Rushing Jaws  
                                Working...
                                X