Apologetics Forum: Ask questions about Christianity/Debate doctrinesBeware of this Different Gospel of ChristAineo, I'm trying to stick with one thread regarding the Trinity, so I have compiled your comments from other threads and posted them here. 1). First of all I do not know of anyone who based the Trinity on John 1:1, that is simply incorrect. The Trinity is based on the biblical data (in its entirety): 1. There is one God (one Being). 2. There are three persons (or self-aware subjects or Egos) who are and are called theos (God). 3. The three persons are grammatically distinct. 2). I am not sure how you define *person* but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all possess personal attributes (love, compassion, hate, etc.), so, if they are not in the category of person, what category can they be placed? For Jesus refers to the Father and the Holy Spirit and persons (esp. John chaps. 14-16) by the use of personal pronouns. How does an impersonal force or something that is not a person (self-aware subject) give love? Base on your comments, you seem to confuse categories—equating person with human. Example: Angels are persons, but not people, Satan is a person but he is not a human, thus one can be a person without being a people, but all people are persons. Again the church has used persons to define God in that He possesses personal attributes and refers to Himself using personal pronouns and call Himself Ego. 3). You would do well to do an exegetical study of the prologue of John. For the prologue presents exegetically that the Word as (a) fully God (1:1c), (b) pros ton theon (with God), and (c) the Creator Himself (v. 3)-not a mere instrument. 4). Sir, first, the conjunction [kai] can be used that way or it can be use as the ascensive "even" or it can denote the synonymous items of a series as well. It is predicated on the context. The context or 1 Cor. 8 is simple dealing with idols. But I assume that you feel that the text indicates that the one God and one Lord is "Jesus," which shows me that you first read unitarianism into the text with out proving it from the Bible. Your argument is exegetically flawed: Normally, when "Father" and "Son" are mentioned in the same sentence, Paul personally differentiated the Father from the Son without infringing on the full deity of either. For example, the term Paul used most frequently when speaking of the Father was theos ("God") while the term he typically used of the Son was kurios ("Lord"). But of course, Paul did explicitly refer to Jesus as ho theos ("the God"; e.g., Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12). Hence, when Paul would speak of the Father and Jesus in the same verse, he would naturally distinguish them by the titles theos and kurios. Accordingly, in Paul’s mind, they were two equal descriptions of deity. Consequently, Oneness teachers fail to realize that in a religious Jewish context the terms kurios and theos were equivalent descriptions of God. This is especially seen when one considers that the very term used to translate the Tetragrammaton (i.e., the divine Name, YHWH or Yahweh) in the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Septuagint (LXX), is this same Greek term kurios. The Father and Son are personally distinct throughout 1 Cor. (e.g., 1:1, 3, 30). You assume your conclusion (viz. unitarianism) that you are wishing to reach. Then you said that (although it can be used to connect adjectives that describe the same person or object when used in this sense you will not find two names of two people as in Adam and Eve or you) I am not sure what your point is here. 5). And? Again I am not sure as to what your point is. 6). Sir that is incorrect. In the NT, the *Son of Man* is used 81-109 times (depending on what Greek text one uses) and the phrase "Son of God" is used far less in the gospels. But what is the point? Thus far I am really not sure as to your theological beliefs since you did not clearly state your position-- only your comments). I assume that you are Oneness, but you seem to clearly assert unitarianism into the text--that much is clear. "In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros] the God, and God was the Word [kai theos çn ho logos]" (John 1:1). And BTW Aineo, can you please respond to "every" one of my refutations as I did with yours. I took the liberty of numbering them. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame