• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

John 1:1 makes the trinity impossible.

I dont have to deal with anything you havent made a point. You just keep claiming that your point is obvious without anything else to back it up.

What I back it up With is the greek grammer itself in John 1:1 ....

You're "one With God" argument was debunked, twice, and could be by anyone who's read the gospel of John even once.
 
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word (literal translation).

Now Lets say we agree the word applies to Jesus, or at least some form of Jesus pre-existing, (be it personal or not).

What is God?

If we ignore the use of the article in the first instance of God and the lack of one in the second, and we claim that the first instance of God is the same as the second, and they are both identifying and entity.

What are they identifying?

Is it God the trinity? was Jesus with the trinity? Was Jesus the trinity? Both are Heresies.

Is God the Son? Was Jesus with the son?

Is God the father? was Jesus the father?

It simply doesn't work.

So we have 2 options, either we claim that the first instance of "God" means the father and the second instance means the son, in which case we have 2 Gods ... we have henotheism, great, we are Arians.

Or we say that the second instance of "God" lacking the article is NOT identifying the word, but describing the word ... in which case the word is "Godlike" or "divine" ... great, again we have Arianism.

But the fact is the article in front of the first "god" and the lack of one in front of the second "god" IS significant, very significant, it's the ONLY place in the whole bible where that happens.

John wasn't writing in a vacume, he knew about Proverbs 8, the Song of Solomon, Sirach, he knew about Philo's "logos" theology. He knew about the concept of the "logos" in philo, or "wisdom" in proverbs, Song of solomon and Sirach, being a created entity through which God created everything, and which was with God from the begining .... and in THAT context John 1:1 makes sense .... the only context it makes NO sense is a trinitarian one.

(if you're a trinitarian and want to respond, don't copy and paste a link, and don't copy and paste from some apologetic website listing citied scriptures with no context ... actually DEAL with the issue I presented and the theology of John 1:1. Thank you.)
I don't think it really matters. If it doesn't make sense to you then you're free not to subscribe to it.
 
I don't think it really matters. If it doesn't make sense to you then you're free not to subscribe to it.

It matters if you think the bible teaches truth.
 
It matters if you think the bible teaches truth.
The bible does teach truth, but this isn't a salvation issue. God is what God is and our understanding or lack there of doesn't affect our judgment.
 
Actually, the Bible teaches that God is not just a singular entity.

The "Shema" Verse

For most Jewish people, the "Shema" is the foundational verse for the concept of a monotheistic God. It is the very heart of Judaism, and serves to confirm, in the Jewish mind, that there cannot be anything other than one God. The Shema verse is found in Deuteronomy 6:4, and says:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."

In Hebrew it reads, "Shema Yisrael Adonai Elohenu Adonai Echad." The word Shema is the first Hebrew word in the passage and means "hear." At first glance this seems to support the Jewish concept of a monotheistic God. However, a careful examination of Deuteronomy 6:4 actually establishes, rather than refutes, the plurality of God. In fact, the Shema verse actually presents one of the strongest arguments for a triune God in the entire Bible. Here's why. The last word of the Shema verse is echad, which is translated into English as the word "one." This is what is known as a compound-unity noun - that is to say, a noun which demonstrates oneness or unity, but at the same time contains two or more entities. A number of scriptural examples will help make the point.

This is a lie, Echad simply means "one" in the exact same way "one" is used in English, it's not a compound unity noun, any more than the English "one" is a compound unity noun. Yachid means "only" or "alone."

These are not 2 different ways of saying "one" the former being compound the latter not ... echad means "one" end of story, period, Yachid means "only" end of story period.

This is a typical trinitarian lie and all that needs to be done is to ask ANY Jewish scholar, and look at how the Shema was ALWAYS interpreted by all Jews throughout history.
 
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word (literal translation).

Now Lets say we agree the word applies to Jesus, or at least some form of Jesus pre-existing, (be it personal or not).

What is God?

Right off the bat you have a context issue. first off if you look at the actual verse Word is capitalized not lower case. With it being capital it means it is referring to a person. In biblical theology any time you see the Word it is referring to Jesus Christ.

this also refers back to Genesis where God said let "us" make man in "our" image. this is a plural form meaning more than 1. There are many other references as such showing the plurality of God.

God is a spirit that does not have the form of man.

If we ignore the use of the article in the first instance of God and the lack of one in the second, and we claim that the first instance of God is the same as the second, and they are both identifying and entity.

What are they identifying?

They are specifically identifying that God is 1 spiritual being made up of 3 distinct personalities. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Is it God the trinity? was Jesus with the trinity? Was Jesus the trinity? Both are Heresies.
nope not at all. It is very much possible for their to be 1 God and 3 persons.
the only heresies are the LDS and JW's that teach Jesus wasn't God and just a simple man that ascended to godhood somehow through his own power.

Is God the Son? Was Jesus with the son?

Is God the father? was Jesus the father?

It simply doesn't work.

Sure it does if you understand the nature and character of God.

So we have 2 options, either we claim that the first instance of "God" means the father and the second instance means the son, in which case we have 2 Gods ... we have henotheism, great, we are Arians.

That is your problem if you want to limit yourself to 2 options and ignore the rest of scripture. other people have a better mind and more theological skills that than.
nope we have 1 God that has 3 personalities.

Or we say that the second instance of "God" lacking the article is NOT identifying the word, but describing the word ... in which case the word is "Godlike" or "divine" ... great, again we have Arianism.

if you read the context and outside of Arianism/JW which actually change the wording of the verse to mean something else Word is describing a person. that person is Christ.

But the fact is the article in front of the first "god" and the lack of one in front of the second "god" IS significant, very significant, it's the ONLY place in the whole bible where that happens.

again you commit a error. Word and God are capitalized therefore they are referring to a person or persons.

John wasn't writing in a vacume, he knew about Proverbs 8, the Song of Solomon, Sirach, he knew about Philo's "logos" theology. He knew about the concept of the "logos" in philo, or "wisdom" in proverbs, Song of solomon and Sirach, being a created entity through which God created everything, and which was with God from the begining .... and in THAT context John 1:1 makes sense .... the only context it makes NO sense is a trinitarian one.

(if you're a trinitarian and want to respond, don't copy and paste a link, and don't copy and paste from some apologetic website listing citied scriptures with no context ... actually DEAL with the issue I presented and the theology of John 1:1. Thank you.)

of course you don't want to see evidence of how you are theologically wrong that would disprove your lds or jw point of view whichever one you prefer.

actually most of the ones I have seen list plenty of context linking both old and new testament scriptures to the fact of a trinity.
that is why the early church adopted the philosophy to begin with. it is also why they rejected Arianism an jw teachings at the same time and considered them heretical.

because neither one could reconcile the divinity of Christ.
 
Right off the bat you have a context issue. first off if you look at the actual verse Word is capitalized not lower case. With it being capital it means it is referring to a person. In biblical theology any time you see the Word it is referring to Jesus Christ.

this also refers back to Genesis where God said let "us" make man in "our" image. this is a plural form meaning more than 1. There are many other references as such showing the plurality of God.

God is a spirit that does not have the form of man.

There is NOT capitalization in greek ... sorry, that isn't biblical, that's a translation interpolation issue.

Genesis is using the magesterial plural, something which was common back then, and is used else where in the bible for human kings. Which is why it only comes up when Yahweh is making a declaration, and when he's described doing the action it's all singular, also even in the declaration the verb is singular, so if you actually look at the Hebrew grammer you'd realize it's not a plurality at all.

They are specifically identifying that God is 1 spiritual being made up of 3 distinct personalities. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Wait so is God in John 1:1 reffering to the Trinity? Or only one or more personalities in the Trinity?

nope not at all. It is very much possible for their to be 1 God and 3 persons.
the only heresies are the LDS and JW's that teach Jesus wasn't God and just a simple man that ascended to godhood somehow through his own power.

How is it possible? Explain what each Word is reffering to?

Sure it does if you understand the nature and character of God.

God is 1 personal being, 1 person.

That is your problem if you want to limit yourself to 2 options and ignore the rest of scripture. other people have a better mind and more theological skills that than.
nope we have 1 God that has 3 personalities.

What other options are there .... explain another way to understand the use of "Theos" in John 1:1 ...

Also I read the rest of scripture, it never presents Jesus as yahweh, InFact Jesus has a God, and that god is Yahweh, and Jesus submits himself to that God ....

if you read the context and outside of Arianism/JW which actually change the wording of the verse to mean something else Word is describing a person. that person is Christ.

Forget what other People say, I'm talking about the origional greek text.

again you commit a error. Word and God are capitalized therefore they are referring to a person or persons.

There is NO CAPITALIZATION IN GREEK!!!

of course you don't want to see evidence of how you are theologically wrong that would disprove your lds or jw point of view whichever one you prefer.

actually most of the ones I have seen list plenty of context linking both old and new testament scriptures to the fact of a trinity.
that is why the early church adopted the philosophy to begin with. it is also why they rejected Arianism an jw teachings at the same time and considered them heretical.

because neither one could reconcile the divinity of Christ.

Explain to me who God in John 1:1 actually is talking about? Is it refering to God as a Trinity? God the father? God the son or what?

believe me I've seen the evidence, I've read the bible many times, and read in the origional greek.

If you want to argue from other scriptures, POST the scripture, quote it, in it's context, then we can go from there, copying and pasting assercions With cited scriptures that arn't quote, is not argumentation, it's nonsense.

Deal With John 1:1, so far you haven't told me what Theos actually is in John 1:1.
 
This is a lie, Echad simply means "one" in the exact same way "one" is used in English, it's not a compound unity noun, any more than the English "one" is a compound unity noun.

Wrong. I've already demonstrated otherwise.

Yachid means "only" or "alone."

You're only partially correct. From Strong's Concordance:

yachid: only, only one, solitary

Strong's Hebrew: 3173. ?????? (yachid) -- only, only one, solitary

This is a typical trinitarian lie and all that needs to be done is to ask ANY Jewish scholar, and look at how the Shema was ALWAYS interpreted by all Jews throughout history.

You've been proven wrong time and time again with your anti-Trinitarian rants. Numerous Christians here in these forums have tried to show you the error of your thinking but to no avail.
 
Wrong. I've already demonstrated otherwise.

No you haven't ... you asserted it.

Hebrew Concordance: ?e·??? -- 471 Occurrences

Look at all the uses of echad ... they mean "one" .... that's it.

"one day" doesn't mean many days in one ... it means 1

We are all sons of "one" man means "one man" not many men in one.

Strong's Hebrew: 259. ????? (echad) -- one

Echad is a number, that number is one .... there is nothing in the definition that means a unity of a multiplicity.

You're only partially correct. From Strong's Concordance:

yachid: only, only one, solitary

Strong's Hebrew: 3173. ?????? (yachid) -- only, only one, solitary

You've been proven wrong time and time again with your anti-Trinitarian rants. Numerous Christians here in these forums have tried to show you the error of your thinking but to no avail.

So you wanna address the OP? What does "Theos" refer to in John 1:1?
 
No you haven't ... you asserted it.

Hebrew Concordance: ?e·??? -- 471 Occurrences

Look at all the uses of echad ... they mean "one" .... that's it.

"one day" doesn't mean many days in one ... it means 1

We are all sons of "one" man means "one man" not many men in one.

Strong's Hebrew: 259. ????? (echad) -- one

Echad is a number, that number is one .... there is nothing in the definition that means a unity of a multiplicity.


So you wanna address the OP? What does "Theos" refer to in John 1:1?

Jesus is Divine!

http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/who-jesus-according-john-apostle
 
So simple question.... Why not just say Jesus was God? Why is that most important fact not stated plainly in any Gospel? God in the OT tells Abraham that He is God. He tells Moses that He is God. But he plays the incognito super-spy in the NT and then is surprised when no one understands why they should believe in His authority? It just makes no sense.
 
So simple question.... Why not just say Jesus was God? Why is that most important fact not stated plainly in any Gospel? God in the OT tells Abraham that He is God. He tells Moses that He is God. But he plays the incognito super-spy in the NT and then is surprised when no one understands why they should believe in His authority? It just makes no sense.


There is no excuse for not seeing the truth about Jesus--At his baptism, God spoke and said--This is my son the beloved in whom I am well pleased--LISTEN TO HIM-- surely all true followers learn and apply every truth Jesus taught. He and every teacher in the nt teach-- Jesus has a God-his Father( Jehovah)
John 20:17, Rev 3:12--2Cor 1:3,1Cor 15:24-28-- 1Peter 1:3-- Rev 1:6

Taught over and over again. All of them in agreement--I say the same today--Jesus' real teachers teach that as well and teach one to accomplish this ultra important reality--John 4:22-24. Father = Jehovah.
 
Last edited:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word (literal translation).

Now Lets say we agree the word applies to Jesus, or at least some form of Jesus pre-existing, (be it personal or not).

What is God?

If we ignore the use of the article in the first instance of God and the lack of one in the second, and we claim that the first instance of God is the same as the second, and they are both identifying and entity.

What are they identifying?

Is it God the trinity? was Jesus with the trinity? Was Jesus the trinity? Both are Heresies.

Is God the Son? Was Jesus with the son?

Is God the father? was Jesus the father?

It simply doesn't work.

So we have 2 options, either we claim that the first instance of "God" means the father and the second instance means the son, in which case we have 2 Gods ... we have henotheism, great, we are Arians.

Or we say that the second instance of "God" lacking the article is NOT identifying the word, but describing the word ... in which case the word is "Godlike" or "divine" ... great, again we have Arianism.

But the fact is the article in front of the first "god" and the lack of one in front of the second "god" IS significant, very significant, it's the ONLY place in the whole bible where that happens.

John wasn't writing in a vacume, he knew about Proverbs 8, the Song of Solomon, Sirach, he knew about Philo's "logos" theology. He knew about the concept of the "logos" in philo, or "wisdom" in proverbs, Song of solomon and Sirach, being a created entity through which God created everything, and which was with God from the begining .... and in THAT context John 1:1 makes sense .... the only context it makes NO sense is a trinitarian one.

(if you're a trinitarian and want to respond, don't copy and paste a link, and don't copy and paste from some apologetic website listing citied scriptures with no context ... actually DEAL with the issue I presented and the theology of John 1:1. Thank you.)

You're missing one important aspect that God is omnipresent, in everyone. So, God's center is everywhere and boundaries nowhere. His name 'Esher ehyeh Esher', literally means-- "I am that I am" or "I will be whatever I want to be."
 
So simple question.... Why not just say Jesus was God? Why is that most important fact not stated plainly in any Gospel? God in the OT tells Abraham that He is God. He tells Moses that He is God. But he plays the incognito super-spy in the NT and then is surprised when no one understands why they should believe in His authority? It just makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Because if Jesus goes around claiming himself to be God in that culture then EVERY TIME it starts a riot and/or they want him dead. And perhaps his disciples along with him.
 
You're missing one important aspect that God is omnipresent, in everyone.

Not "IN" everyone. Only those filled with his Holy Spirit.

Some are of their father, the devil (John 8:44).
 
Notice you're NOT dealing With the OP ... did you read it at all?

Or are you just gonna copy and paste irrelivent stuff?

I also noticed that it is a list of out of context quotes. Making lists of out of context quotes don't mean anything, unless you are willing to examine each one, and discuss it in context. Someone who just does lists without examining more than the superficial surface does not really show an understanding of the issue.
 
With free will to do right or wrong.

unless god created the devil intentionally sinful and knowing that his creation betray him, god made a mistake in creating the devil.

i think god created the devil in order to prevent himself from becoming too powerful.
 
The bible does teach truth, but this isn't a salvation issue. God is what God is and our understanding or lack there of doesn't affect our judgment.

The written document defining this “Trinity” is the Athanasian Creed. This Creed begins by stating that in order to be saved, one must understand and believe it, and that failing to do so condemns one to “perish everlastingly”. Of course, to read this Creed, it is unintelligible, incomprehensible nonsense, so if taken at its face, it condemns everyone except those who are insane in the direction and to the degree that it seems sensible to them, to damnation.

At this point in history, there were two conflicting views of the relationship between the three beings who comprise the Godhead. The dominant one, drawing more from heathen heresies, held them all to be at once one being and three beings. This is drawn from the Hindu idea of one god who is really three gods who is really three hundred gods who is really three thousand gods.

A conflicting belief held them to be three separate and distinct beings. This is the belief that is far more consistent with the Bible, and with what Jesus himself clearly stated.

The heathen belief dominated, and was enforced by violence and murder against those who disputed it, and has come to remain the dominant belief among most modern Christians.


I suppose it should be obvious form how I have stated this, that I do not accept this blasphemy. I accept, what the Bible clearly depicts, what Jesus himself stated, and what modern prophets have further clarified, that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are, in fact, three separate and distinct beings.
 
unless god created the devil intentionally sinful and knowing that his creation betray him, god made a mistake in creating the devil.

i think god created the devil in order to prevent himself from becoming too powerful.

If that's true why does the devil wind up in the Lake of Fire forever and ever?
 
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the word (literal translation).

Now Lets say we agree the word applies to Jesus, or at least some form of Jesus pre-existing, (be it personal or not).

What is God?

If we ignore the use of the article in the first instance of God and the lack of one in the second, and we claim that the first instance of God is the same as the second, and they are both identifying and entity.

What are they identifying?

Is it God the trinity? was Jesus with the trinity? Was Jesus the trinity? Both are Heresies.

Is God the Son? Was Jesus with the son?

Is God the father? was Jesus the father?

It simply doesn't work.

So we have 2 options, either we claim that the first instance of "God" means the father and the second instance means the son, in which case we have 2 Gods ... we have henotheism, great, we are Arians.

Or we say that the second instance of "God" lacking the article is NOT identifying the word, but describing the word ... in which case the word is "Godlike" or "divine" ... great, again we have Arianism.

But the fact is the article in front of the first "god" and the lack of one in front of the second "god" IS significant, very significant, it's the ONLY place in the whole bible where that happens.

John wasn't writing in a vacume, he knew about Proverbs 8, the Song of Solomon, Sirach, he knew about Philo's "logos" theology. He knew about the concept of the "logos" in philo, or "wisdom" in proverbs, Song of solomon and Sirach, being a created entity through which God created everything, and which was with God from the begining .... and in THAT context John 1:1 makes sense .... the only context it makes NO sense is a trinitarian one.

(if you're a trinitarian and want to respond, don't copy and paste a link, and don't copy and paste from some apologetic website listing citied scriptures with no context ... actually DEAL with the issue I presented and the theology of John 1:1. Thank you.)

"The word" means Truth.
 
On a side note, many scholars have found many inconsistencies in the new testament. They were written with different authors (Mathew wasn't written by Mathew), written at different times, just like the Old Testament. There were three sources of the Old Testament, all written at different locations at different times, with many revisions.

So obviously the text will be somewhat consistent.

You may have found in your mind one of the inconsistencies. Apparently there are more.
 
Back
Top Bottom