The Holy Trinity

[Fortigurn]

In this particular instance, you claimed that this passage says Jesus is God. It does not.

Actually I claimed that the Corinthians passage indicates Christ's divinity; His eternal nature. I stated right at the start that Christ's divinity must first be shown before the Trinity can be discussed. I am making no such leap to Jesus is God as you claim.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. You say that the text indicates Christ's Divinity, but doesn't say he is God? How can he be Divine if he is not God?

Regardless, the text does not indicate Christ's Divinity either. It makes a statement which you interpret in a certain way, on which you then base a certain syllogism by which you reach the conclusion that Christ is Divine, and part of the trinity.

I have said that a few passages you've offered me have been incorrectly translated. Since you have been quoting from the KJV (a notoriously inaccurate translation), this should come as no surprise to you.

Actually I've been quoting almost exclusively from NIV and I had the one point of clarity with which I used NASB; any KJV quoted was a reprint of another passage posted by yourself or someone else in the thread.

Thanks for that, I stand corrected. It goes to show how important it is to read people's posts closely.

If you could show me that my argument is false - that in the Bible neither men, nor angels, nor anyone who is not God bears Divine titles - that would prove your case.

It's about context, and you should realize that. Christ returns in all His glory and majesty and says "I am the First and the Last" - to me that's much more than a title.

What in the context indicates that this is more than a title? It is either a title, a personal name, or an ontological statement. Since it is not a personal name or an ontological statement in Isaiah, then you either have to argue that here it is uniquely a personal name or ontological statement (extremely difficult), or something else.

Your argument is not false; it is implausible because it is based on an unreasonable interpretation of scripture.

What is unreasonable about it?

The Propitiatory Substitution doctrine was invented by Anselm in the 11th century, and I see no reason to believe in the product of his imagination.

I'm talking about much more than "only God can save." I'm talking about the nature of a loving, living God whom our very purpose is to love in return.

I agree with a loving, living God whom our very purpose is to love in return. I fail to see how this necessitates that God be a trinity;

Obviously you will not reconsider, though really you should be open to the concept of Christ's divinity because from my point of view stubbornly maintaining that Jesus was only a man gains you nothing.

Firstly, do you think that if I wasn't prepared to discuss this I would have made all these posts? Do you know how many times I've had this conversation?

Secondly, I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe Christ was 'only a man'.

Maybe that's the start of a new thread; why is it so important to you that Jesus was only a man? I've explained the implications I see of understanding that Jesus is God, what do you believe that mandates Jesus be no more than a man?

Gladly, I'll start a new thread.

[Fortigurn]

The doctrine of the Trinity seems to be the topic of choice here. Since I am new here, I'll jump right in and hope to clarify the issue as simply as I can.

BW, thank you for your effort. Do you want me to show you why your analogy is considered inadequate or even heretical by standard trinitarian scholarship, or should we just agree to disagree?

[Fortigurn]

Actually 1 Corinthians 8:6 says 'through whom are all things', which is a critical difference (that's not my translation, that's from a standard modern evangelical translation).

Every time you get backed into a corner by clear and simple scripture you simply deny the authority of scripture. "Oh, well this is the wrong translation" or "That passage in 1 John should not even be in there."

That is not correct. I have said a lot more than that. In this particular instance, you claimed that this passage says Jesus is God. It does not. It makes a statement about Christ from which you draw a particular inference, and in the process of reconciling that infererence with other Biblical data you eventually draw the conclusion that Jesus is God.

That is very far from the passage saying that Jesus is God. Because you are so used to going through this entire process of reasoning, you don't even realise you're doing it, so when you read the passage you don't so much read what it says, you read into it the conclusion you've reached, so you genuinely believe it is saying 'Jesus is God', even though it is not.

Felgar did not comment on your entire response above, particularly the last paragraph but I will, since it clearly shows the level of blind arrogance you seem to display and the utter disregard with which you dismiss the opinions and interpretations of others if they disagree with yours. Please do not take this as an insult, it is simply how I read it, though I'm sure you will somehow dismiss it as well.

I am sorry if you read it that way. I believe you misunderstood the point I was making. My point was that when asked for an explicit statement, you provide passage which you acknowledge makes only an implicit statement (even by your interpretation of it).

The reason why you do this is because you are so used to deriving your conclusion from a chain of reasoning inferred from the text, that you actually treat it as an explicit statement, when in fact it is not.

I need to make it clear that I do exactly the same. It is almost unavoidable when we use passages which are not explicit to support our arguments. I have been tripped up in this way myself more than once when discussing Scripture with atheists. They request an explicit statement, and I provide instead a statement from which I infer a certain chain of reasoning which leads to a certain conclusion.

The problem is that I am so used to deriving that conclusion from the passage, that I come to associate that passage with the conclusion, and treat it in my mind as if it were an explicit statement, when in fact it is not.

I hope that clarifies my remarks.

In the last paragraph, you're not arguing historical, textual or linguistic points. You are simply and matter-of-factly telling us that either we do not comprehend what we read and when we do, our conclusions are false, albeit genuine.

I haven't actually done that. I simply explained that you follow a certain chain of inferred reasoning when you read that passage. I do the same with other passages - we all do.

It just defies credulity that you can reach this level of unreasonableness as to actually believe your erroneous conclusions to be factual. However misplaced, I'm certain to you they seem genuine.

Ironically, here you make the accusation you thought I was making.

[Fortigurn]

Jesus and the father are one. (possably how man and wife are one)

Thank you for your list of passages Deborah. If you had read this thread, you would have discovered that these have been presented to me before - more than once - and that I have answered them (more than once).

I should point out to you also that if God and Christ are one in the same way that man and wife are one, then God and Christ are two separate beings who share a close relationship. That isn't the trinity, so I suggest you don't go there.

[Fortigurn]

If, however, you're posting for the benefit of Fortigurn, I would suggest not to even bother as his arguments are old and tiring.

Byblos, you haven't given any indication that you have actually read my arguments. But if you have in fact read them, then I would appreciate your explaining to me why you define them as 'old and tiring'.

I am particularly interested in this because a number of my arguments are in fact arguments raised by orthodox trinitarian scholars, and professional Bible translators.

I happen to be a member of a professional Bible translation email discussion list (though I am not a professional Bible translator myself). I have been a member of it for the last 5 years, so I am in fact very well aware of Bible translation issues.

If you were a member of this list, you would be able to see that a number of the arguments I have raised are not unique to me, but are raised by standard trinitarian scholars and Bible translators.

I would welcome your comments on why their arguments are 'old and tiring'. Perhaps you could join the list and explain it to them.

According to him either the quotes are mis-translated or we're just too blind to really see what they actually mean, although he is gracious enough to acknowledge that our intentions are genuine.

I have not said that. I have commented that a few of the passages you choose to offer as proof of the trinity have been mistranslated, and I have provided evidence for this from standard orthodox trinitarian commentaries and translators.

Not only that, he goes so far as to state all of us are not understanding what we're reading.

I have not said that either.

[Fortigurn]

One of the key failings of this thread has been the lack of people actually reading my posts properly - or even reading them at all.

When I post replies to a set of verses, and the same set of verses is posted by three other people subsequently, without any acknowledgement of the fact that I have already replied to them, it is a clear demonstration that some people are not prepared to read what I am writing.

Another failing has been the lack of recognition of certain key translation and exegetical issues with regard to this topic. I have seen no acknowledgement that 1 John 5:7 is not in fact part of the Biblical text. Instead, I have seen it presented to be at least three times, presented to me even after I had actually addressed it twice. It appears that there are people here who didn't even know that this passage has been recognised as an addition to the Scriputres, for at least 500 years.

Another failing has been that people here do not appear familiar with the arguments made by traditional trinitarians such as I have quoted (including John Calvin, John Gill, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, and others), men who in fact reject some of the arguments and 'proof texs' which have been presented to me here.

Not only that, but many here do not appear familiar with the modern trinitarian commentaries which reject certain traditional arguments, nor with modern Bible translations (by trinitarians), which translate and expound certain favourite trinitarian 'proof texts' as being no such thing.

I have spent a great deal of my time reading very widely and deeply on this subject. I have read the Early Fathers. I have read the Reformers. I have read Baptists, Methodists, Puritans, and Evangelicals. I have read commentators ancient and modern, and paid the greatest attention to contemporary text criticism and translation scholarship (overwhelmingly trinitarian).

I have spent at least five years doing this. Why? Because I am in fact determined to understand what others believe, so that I can discuss their beliefs with them effectively. I would wish that others show me the same courtesy.

This is the reason, by the way, that David V Barrett ('Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions', 1996), comments that many Christadelphians actually understand the trinity better than many trinitarians. As he explains, we have spent time and effort studying it in detail, specifically because we have to deal with it all the time.

[Kurieuo]

There is nothing which needs to be implied or assumed in these passages. They are explicit. As I have said, you have merely resorted to ungrammatical readings and flawed reasoning (please deal in particular with the fact that I proved your 'Socrates' analogy to be flawed).

Well your accusations of "ungrammatical readings", and "flawed reasoning" though unbecoming, is to be expected I suppose reading the majority of your posts within this thread.

Now you are quite entitled to consider the passages you provided as "explicit" ignoring my comments of how they were actually "implicit", but then by your idea of "explicit" I believe we have "explicit" statements of Christ being God, and "explicit" statements of the Holy Spirit being God by virtue of Him "explicitly" possessing attributes that can only be considered divine. And as such, the concept of the Trinity is "explicitly" taught in Scripture. I believe these doctrines to all be "explicit" if I employ your idea of "explicit".

Now "explicit" statements regarding Christ's divinity found in John 1, which I believe still remain unsatisfactorily refuted (and I'm going to continue honing in on this until I either feel a satisfactory response has been given, or you admit Christ is "explicitly" being referred to as God):

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him [the Word] was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him [the Word; from v.3 "Through him all things were made"], the world did not recognize him. 11He [the Word] came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him [the Word], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him [the Word]. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

...

29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'

So from v.29 Jesus is "explicitly" him ("the Word") in v.15; who was "the Word" that became flesh in v.14; who was "the Word" through which the world was made in v.10; who was the one with God in the beginning in v.2; who was "the Word" who was God in v.1.

Kurieuo

[B. W.]

Jesus did claim He was God and many of the passages have been alluded to in this thread. For example: Matthew 9: 1-8 tells the story of the scribes challenging Jesus because Jesus forgave a man's sins. Their argument was that only God can forgive sins. Jesus went on to heal the man. In other words, only God can forgive sins and heal. Again Jesus, as John 8: 19-58 records another argument that Jesus was not God but Jesus did answer that he was the 'I AM' of the Torah and Prophets. The religious leaders took up stones to kill Him for this claim.

Now the question remains — what is the real issue here in this thread?

Is it the manner that the writers of the New Testament describe that 'Christ be formed in you'? or as that which Jesus stated that — John 17:1-26 the —

“..Now oh Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world began” and,, “that they may one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in you that they also be one in Us that the world may believe that you sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them that they maybe one just as we are one. I in them and You in Me; that they maybe perfect in one in Us..”

Is the issue — the interpretation of Christ in us as One — thus Jesus was not God but just one with God — like a Human? Or is the issue Jesus' claim that He was God as He himself taught? Remember — all judgment was from God. But how could Jesus be the final end time judge if He were not God? (Matt 25: 31-46) (Rev 1: 8, 17-18).

or........,,,

Maybe the issue is not understanding the triune nature of all living matter and its relationship to reveling God? The Father of life, intelligence, wisdom, righteousness, justice, mercy, grace, etc, The Son — the expressions and embodiment of the Father's will — or the one who does the work of His Father. The Holy Spirit — the breath, power, the divine life of God do agree as one - Three parts as one.

You could also argue that the Father is the Soul of God and that the Son is the expression of the soul — the body that does the work. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God that grants life to all. A casual reading of the scriptures appears to verify this: the three agree as one. Each part differs but are the same.

[Byblos]

There is nothing which needs to be implied or assumed in these passages. They are explicit. As I have said, you have merely resorted to ungrammatical readings and flawed reasoning (please deal in particular with the fact that I proved your 'Socrates' analogy to be flawed).

Well your accusations of "ungrammatical readings", and "flawed reasoning" though unbecoming, is to be expected I suppose reading the majority of your posts within this thread.

Now you are quite entitled to consider the passages you provided as "explicit" ignoring my comments of how they were actually "implicit", but then by your idea of "explicit" I believe we have "explicit" statements of Christ being God, and "explicit" statements of the Holy Spirit being God by virtue of Him "explicitly" possessing attributes that can only be considered divine. And as such, the concept of the Trinity is "explicitly" taught in Scripture. I believe these doctrines to all be "explicit" if I employ your idea of "explicit".

Now "explicit" statements regarding Christ's divinity found in John 1, which I believe still remain unsatisfactorily refuted (and I'm going to continue honing in on this until I either feel a satisfactory response has been given, or you admit Christ is "explicitly" being referred to as God):

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him [the Word] was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him [the Word; from v.3 "Through him all things were made"], the world did not recognize him. 11He [the Word] came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him [the Word], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him [the Word]. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

...

29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'

So from v.29 Jesus is "explicitly" him ("the Word") in v.15; who was "the Word" that became flesh in v.14; who was "the Word" through which the world was made in v.10; who was the one with God in the beginning in v.2; who was "the Word" who was God in v.1.

Kurieuo

Fortigurn, please allow me to respond on your behalf and show you how your arguments are old and tiring:

I've been though this many times. Please go back and re-read my response but just in case you don't, here it is one more time. If the Word became Jesus, then clearly the Word was not Jesus to begin with. If X became Y then X is not Y.

That pretty much covers it, does it not? Well, let's see:

Some definitions are in order:

Word = X
Jesus = Y
God = Z

Then we have:

In the beginning was the Word = X

and the Word was with God = X & Z

and the Word was God. X = Z

The Word became flesh X = Y and X = Z

I know you will argue that if the Word became flesh then it wasn't the word to start with but you see that logic is very flawed as if that were the case, according to your analogy the word (that is eternal) was transformed into a mortal being. This is a fatal logical contradiction as by definition the word is eternal so it cannot 'become' anything other than eternal. Therefore, even mathematically it can be proven that Jesus is eternal.

[Byblos]

Jesus did claim He was God and many of the passages have been alluded to in this thread. For example: Matthew 9: 1-8 tells the story of the scribes challenging Jesus because Jesus forgave a man's sins. Their argument was that only God can forgive sins. Jesus went on to heal the man. In other words, only God can forgive sins and heal. Again Jesus, as John 8: 19-58 records another argument that Jesus was not God but Jesus did answer that he was the 'I AM' of the Torah and Prophets. The religious leaders took up stones to kill Him for this claim.

Now the question remains — what is the real issue here in this thread?

Is it the manner that the writers of the New Testament describe that 'Christ be formed in you'? or as that which Jesus stated that — John 17:1-26 the —

“..Now oh Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world began” and,, “that they may one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in you that they also be one in Us that the world may believe that you sent me. And the glory which You gave me I have given them that they maybe one just as we are one. I in them and You in Me; that they maybe perfect in one in Us..”

Is the issue — the interpretation of Christ in us as One — thus Jesus was not God but just one with God — like a Human? Or is the issue Jesus' claim that He was God as He himself taught? Remember — all judgment was from God. But how could Jesus be the final end time judge if He were not God? (Matt 25: 31-46) (Rev 1: 8, 17-18).

or........,,,

Maybe the issue is not understanding the triune nature of all living matter and its relationship to reveling God? The Father of life, intelligence, wisdom, righteousness, justice, mercy, grace, etc, The Son — the expressions and embodiment of the Father's will — or the one who does the work of His Father. The Holy Spirit — the breath, power, the divine life of God do agree as one - Three parts as one.

You could also argue that the Father is the Soul of God and that the Son is the expression of the soul — the body that does the work. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God that grants life to all. A casual reading of the scriptures appears to verify this: the three agree as one. Each part differs but are the same.

B.W., I'm not sure if you've had the time to read the thread in its entirety but basically the discussion is centered around the Holy Trinity (as the title implies).

Fortigurn is a Christadelphian. Christadelphians do not believe in the trinity and maintain it is not a doctrine revealed in scripture. One way to prove the trinitarian doctrine from scripture was to show Fortigurn the many passages that clearly show the divinity of Christ. That would be the logical first step to proving the trinity, hence the many posts re Christ as God.

That's basically it. Hope this helps.

[Byblos]

If, however, you're posting for the benefit of Fortigurn, I would suggest not to even bother as his arguments are old and tiring.

Byblos, you haven't given any indication that you have actually read my arguments. But if you have in fact read them, then I would appreciate your explaining to me why you define them as 'old and tiring'.

I am particularly interested in this because a number of my arguments are in fact arguments raised by orthodox trinitarian scholars, and professional Bible translators.

I happen to be a member of a professional Bible translation email discussion list (though I am not a professional Bible translator myself). I have been a member of it for the last 5 years, so I am in fact very well aware of Bible translation issues.

If you were a member of this list, you would be able to see that a number of the arguments I have raised are not unique to me, but are raised by standard trinitarian scholars and Bible translators.

I would welcome your comments on why their arguments are 'old and tiring'. Perhaps you could join the list and explain it to them.

What I would like to know is how come they're still trinitarians if according to you most of the trinitarian arguments they themselves have refuted.

According to him either the quotes are mis-translated or we're just too blind to really see what they actually mean, although he is gracious enough to acknowledge that our intentions are genuine.

I have not said that. I have commented that a few of the passages you choose to offer as proof of the trinity have been mistranslated, and I have provided evidence for this from standard orthodox trinitarian commentaries and translators.

Not only that, he goes so far as to state all of us are not understanding what we're reading.

I have not said that either.

No? How else would you read this?

Actually 1 Corinthians 8:6 says 'through whom are all things', which is a critical difference (that's not my translation, that's from a standard modern evangelical translation).

Every time you get backed into a corner by clear and simple scripture you simply deny the authority of scripture. "Oh, well this is the wrong translation" or "That passage in 1 John should not even be in there."

That is not correct. I have said a lot more than that. In this particular instance, you claimed that this passage says Jesus is God. It does not. It makes a statement about Christ from which you draw a particular inference, and in the process of reconciling that infererence with other Biblical data you eventually draw the conclusion that Jesus is God.

That is very far from the passage saying that Jesus is God. Because you are so used to going through this entire process of reasoning, you don't even realise you're doing it, so when you read the passage you don't so much read what it says, you read into it the conclusion you've reached, so you genuinely believe it is saying 'Jesus is God', even though it is not.

Those are some very explicit statements re our inability to comprehend as our process of reasoning is clouded by presuppositions. In other words, we do not understand what we're reading.

[Fortigurn]

There is nothing which needs to be implied or assumed in these passages. They are explicit. As I have said, you have merely resorted to ungrammatical readings and flawed reasoning (please deal in particular with the fact that I proved your 'Socrates' analogy to be flawed).

Well your accusations of "ungrammatical readings", and "flawed reasoning" though unbecoming, is to be expected I suppose reading the majority of your posts within this thread.

Hey, don't take my word for it - I invite you to go to a professional Bible translation email list, post your arguments that these verses are all 'implicit' rather than explicit (together with the grammatical justifications you use), and see how your arguments are received. I'll just sit back and watch.

Now you are quite entitled to consider the passages you provided as "explicit" ignoring my comments of how they were actually "implicit", but then by your idea of "explicit" I believe we have "explicit" statements of Christ being God, and "explicit" statements of the Holy Spirit being God by virtue of Him "explicitly" possessing attributes that can only be considered divine. And as such, the concept of the Trinity is "explicitly" taught in Scripture. I believe these doctrines to all be "explicit" if I employ your idea of "explicit".

If I grant that we have explicit statements of Christ and the Holy Spirit being God, that still does not consiitute an explicit teaching of the trinity in Scripture. It simply provides passages from which the trinity is syllogistically derived.

An explicit teaching of the trinity in Scripture would describe God explicitly as three persons in one being. That is the essential concept of the trinity.

Now "explicit" statements regarding Christ's divinity found in John 1, which I believe still remain unsatisfactorily refuted (and I'm going to continue honing in on this until I either feel a satisfactory response has been given, or you admit Christ is "explicitly" being referred to as God):

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him [the Word] was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him [the Word; from v.3 "Through him all things were made"], the world did not recognize him. 11He [the Word] came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him [the Word], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him [the Word]. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

...

29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'

So from v.29 Jesus is "explicitly" him ("the Word") in v.15; who was "the Word" that became flesh in v.14; who was "the Word" through which the world was made in v.10; who was the one with God in the beginning in v.2; who was "the Word" who was God in v.1.

I have replied to this before, and no one actually addressed my reply. If I reply to this, will you read my reply and respond to it?

[Fortigurn]

Jesus did claim He was God and many of the passages have been alluded to in this thread. For example: Matthew 9: 1-8 tells the story of the scribes challenging Jesus because Jesus forgave a man's sins. Their argument was that only God can forgive sins. Jesus went on to heal the man. In other words, only God can forgive sins and heal. Again Jesus, as John 8: 19-58 records another argument that Jesus was not God but Jesus did answer that he was the 'I AM' of the Torah and Prophets. The religious leaders took up stones to kill Him for this claim.

I have dealt with these passages before. Please read my posts. Please note also the fact that Christ gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, proving that the argument 'Only God can forgive sins' is false.

[Fortigurn]

What I would like to know is how come they're still trinitarians if according to you most of the trinitarian arguments they themselves have refuted.

Two reasons. Firstly because they believe there remain other trinitarian arguments which they find convincing. Secondly because they believe in the authority of 'The Church' to formally define binding dogma which is not revealed explicitly in Scripture.

No? How else would you read this?

Actually 1 Corinthians 8:6 says 'through whom are all things', which is a critical difference (that's not my translation, that's from a standard modern evangelical translation).

Every time you get backed into a corner by clear and simple scripture you simply deny the authority of scripture. "Oh, well this is the wrong translation" or "That passage in 1 John should not even be in there."

That is not correct. I have said a lot more than that. In this particular instance, you claimed that this passage says Jesus is God. It does not. It makes a statement about Christ from which you draw a particular inference, and in the process of reconciling that infererence with other Biblical data you eventually draw the conclusion that Jesus is God.

That is very far from the passage saying that Jesus is God. Because you are so used to going through this entire process of reasoning, you don't even realise you're doing it, so when you read the passage you don't so much read what it says, you read into it the conclusion you've reached, so you genuinely believe it is saying 'Jesus is God', even though it is not.

Those are some very explicit statements re our inability to comprehend as our process of reasoning is clouded by presuppositions. In other words, we do not understand what we're reading.

I didn't say anything about your inability to comprehend. I didn't even use the word 'comprehend'. Nor was I speaking of you interpreting the passage for yourself, and coming to it with certain presuppositions.

I was talking about you presenting the passage to someone else (as you have done in this thread), convinced that it says X, on the basis that you are used to interpreting it in that way through a certain process of reasoning.

I have also pointed out that this happens to us all, myself included.

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn, please allow me to respond on your behalf and show you how your arguments are old and tiring:

I've been though this many times. Please go back and re-read my response but just in case you don't, here it is one more time. If the Word became Jesus, then clearly the Word was not Jesus to begin with. If X became Y then X is not Y.

That pretty much covers it, does it not?

No it doesn't pretty much cover it. It was simply one of a number of arguments I raised in contention with the interpretation of John 1 which has been presented here.

Well, let's see:

Some definitions are in order:

Word = X
Jesus = Y
God = Z

Then we have:

In the beginning was the Word = X

and the Word was with God = X & Z

and the Word was God. X = Z

The Word became flesh X = Y and X = Z

Your process of reasoning here omits certain facts:

* If X becomes Y, then X is not X any more, X = Y (I can show you examples in the New Testament of this same grammatical phrase, and in all cases when X becomes Y it does not remain X)

* The trinitarian dogma doesn't actually say that X became Y, it actually says that X added Y to X (which is how the early trinitarians attempted to get around the logical contradiction of X becoming Y and still remaining X), the problem here being that the text doesn't say X added Y to X, it says that X became Y

* If X is God, then X is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - you need the text to say that the Word was 'God the Son'

* If X is God (unqualified), and God became flesh, then God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all became flesh

I know you will argue that if the Word became flesh then it wasn't the word to start with...

No, that is not at all what I am arguing. Please read my posts.

This is a fatal logical contradiction as by definition the word is eternal so it cannot 'become' anything other than eternal. Therefore, even mathematically it can be proven that Jesus is eternal.

Your argument here states:

* The Word is eternal
* The Word cannot become anything other than eternal
* The Word became flesh
* Therefore flesh is eternal

You might want to think about revising that.