Saying it doesn't make it so.
You can have your doctrine if you prefer but I directly quoted God's own word and will be sticking with that over your personal opinions.
Jesus is God
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Saying it doesn't make it so.
You can have your doctrine if you prefer but I directly quoted God's own word and will be sticking with that over your personal opinions.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, saying that God is comprised of three persons in a single being does not make it so.
Thanks, but I will stick with what the Bible clearly states as opposed to the suppositions and inferences of the extra-Biblical doctrine that you choose to believe over the Word of God.
From your link: "Many religions are monotheistic, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam"
Original Judaism, called Yahwism, was henotheistic, but changed into monotheism (Elohism) during the Babylonian exile. Modern Elohism focuses on "God", while Yahwism focuses on YHWH.
Islam is monotheistic but it isn't a form of Elohism since it focuses on the singular Allah rather than the plural Elohim. Islam acknowledges the role of angels in the creation of mankind and the law of Israel:
We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.
Quran 5:32
Modern translations of the Bible typically endorse the Elohist model, which conflates the singular words Eloah and Elah with the plural Elohim.
I directly quoted the bible stating precisely what you just claimed was false! You're simply a liar. That's all there is to it. I don't understand what the payoff is for you but whatever it is, it won't have been worth it.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
14 And the Word became 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.
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Last edited:
John 1:1 is mistranslated, the definite article is missing in the middle phrase, and the sense of the final phrase is reversed:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In the begining was the logos, and the logos was with the theos, and theos was the logos,
logos = reason
Your text:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
genuineoriginal
New member
I see what you did there.
You took the verses that say that the Word (Logos- the Divine Will) became flesh and inferred that it meant that the Creator Himself became flesh.
But, I rely on all the Bible, which includes many verses that state that God sent His Son.
| Galatians 4:4-5 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. |
According to your beliefs, you did not lie.
But, I am not the one that needs to reject the verses that say God sent His Son in order to believe that God Himself became flesh.
The payoff is that I am able to believe what the Bible clearly teaches and I don't have to bow down to any extra-Biblical doctrine that requires me to ignore many of the verses of the Bible that contradict that doctrine.
:kookoo:
genuineoriginal
New member
The translators did the best they could, but Word is a simplistic translation of Logos.
| Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”)plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. |
I think a full translation of John 1:1 would be:
In the beginning was the Divine Reason for creation, and the Divine Reason for creation was with God, and God was the Divine Reason for creation.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You've already asserted that falsehood, over and over, you anti-Christ liar: more vain repetition from you.
The Bible teaches the Trinity; what the Bible does not teach is your unitarianism. The Bible opposes your unitarianism.
Here, you're lying about me, and about the Bible, yet again. But, you've no scruples about lying, since you, an anti-Christ, lie about Jesus Christ by teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, is not good.
And, like I said, you go around saying "God is not a Trinity", you lying anti-Christ.
False.
Obviously, since the Bible teaches the Trinity, your falsehood that the Bible does not teach the Trinity can never be verified by checking the Bible, nor in any other way.
That's no argument; it's just a falsehood you are asserting.
False.
Well, here you are blaspheming God, once again. Perhaps you're actually so stupid that you do not know what contradiction is. At any rate, you are charging God with having affirmed falsehood. Why do you thus? Because you're of your father, the devil, and there is no light in you; you're full of Christ-hating darkness. Have fun with that, you lying devil.
Never mind, dearie, go have a lie down and a cup of warm milk.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You have just told me that each of two, mutually-contradictory propositions, can be proved. Since one of every two, mutually-contradictory propositions is false, you are telling me that false propositions can be proved. So, you've now amply advertised your view of the nature of proving as being an irrational, utterly worthless, view, since you think that what is false can be proved.
Anyway, by "fixing" your raving, you've not made it any less a raving, nor have you by even a shred got yourself out from under the burden of stupidity you've created for yourself to carry.
Just my thoughts on your heresy. Nothing to be concerned about.
Right Divider
Body part
The Bible says that there is ONE God. So clearly you do not understand the difference between the LORD GOD and the other "gods".
You are a Bible twister who pushes his false doctrines on the scripture.
You're interpolating the idea of creation, and you're omitting the definite article just as in Clete's translation.
The presence of the definite article implies that there were other theos - this idea is incompatible with monotheism so that's probably why it got left out of the translation.
Theos is singular but Elohim is plural, it's a nonsense to translate both of these words as "God".
Sometimes the truth is heresy, eg the condemnation of the Pharisees.
God's Truth
New member
Maybe if you are a pagan you can say that.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Genesis 1:26, KJV
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...
Genesis 3:22, KJV
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, ONE is not of absolute singularity but ONE of unity. The trinity.... thanks for playing.
God's Truth
New member
The three are the same ONE and ONLY God who is the Father.
The scripture proves that it is one image, not three different Persons, as the trinity says.
The scripture doesn't say let us make man in our images.
genuineoriginal
New member
No, the Bible does not teach the Trinity.
Unitarianism is not my belief.
Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One, the Son of God, sent by God to be the savior of the world through His obedience unto death on the cross, as a lamb without blemish or spot, without sin.
In no way am I an anti-Christ, nor do I lie about what the Bible teaches about Jesus, the Son of God.
No, I go around saying that the Bible does not teach the Trinity, which is a true and irrefutable statement.
It is a shame that not even one Trinitarian in over 1,600 years has been able to find the passages in the Bible that teach the Trinity, they could only find passages that could be construed as supporting their belief in the Trinity as long as they ignored the more numerous passages that refuted the Trinity doctrine.