• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Five Lessons explaining the usage/grammar of John for John 1:1c.

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Yes there was a lot of obfuscation in the first 57 posts.

Yes there was, but I believe the obfuscation started with the Lesson (A) and extended through Lesson (E).

But this whole thread has been entertaining with bad Greek grammar , pseudo-meanings ("count nouns" which for some reason, despite request, are never defined), and even an alternate, revisionist history where the entire early Christian world is cast not only as Arian but truly polytheistic in their theology.

So the Watchtower claims there were early Christian gods running all over the place, not because of anything in the historic record, not because of scripture, but because of their 'analysis' of Greek grammar!

If that isn't historical revisionism, I don't know what is. It was also a great exercise in theological homographs, where words like "a god" are assigned totally different meanings. The aberrant meaning is then placed into the mouths of early Christians by the Watchtower. It's how history gets changed.

_______________________________________________


As a general rule, nouns are either Definite (identity, known entity..."the cow"), Indefinite (one of a class of others, unknown specific entity..."a cow"), or Qualitative (essence or nature—not identity).

Like flesh in John 1:14, theos in John 1:1c is qualitative...the Word became flesh not "the flesh".

We don't write "God is a love" (indefinite love) or "God is the love" (where we make love definite) “ο θεος αγαπη εστιν”, so at 1 John 4:8 love is qualitative.

At John 1:1c we find theos is an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative (a predicate nominative simply describes the category or class to which the subject belongs). So the Word belongs to the category theos (God) as to his essence or nature, and not to His personal identify as it would with a definite noun (see definition of Definite, above).

Quite simply, John place theos in the emphatic position at 1:1c (see post #71) which makes "everything God was the Word was" and any "a god" rendering improbable. In fact, "a god" becomes impossible when we consider the first clause (the clause the WT would like us to forget) because "In the beginning the Word was"... which means the Word already existed "In the beginning" and is eternal.

And of course the WT's argument regarding clause 2 (If Jesus is God, how can he be with God) holds no weight against the traditional historic church because we are not Sabellian in our Christology. Jesus is a separate distinct person within the Godhead, not a separate distinct God as the Witnesses proclaim.
 

tigger2

Active Member
Oeste wrote: "Yes there was, but I believe the obfuscation started with the Lesson (A) and extended through Lesson (E).

"But this whole thread has been entertaining with bad Greek grammar , pseudo-meanings ("count nouns" which for some reason, despite request, are never defined), and even an alternate, revisionist history where the entire early Christian world is cast not only as Arian but truly polytheistic in their theology."

I somehow thought you were capable on your own of finding this common term online or in textbooks.

Plurals, Articles, and Quantity Words // Purdue Writing Lab

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/count_and_noncount_nouns/count_noncount_nouns_with_articles_adjectives.html

Count and Non-Count Nouns

Your 'polytheistic' accusation is abundantly covered in Lesson B. Your dismissal of it does nothing to discount the overwhelming evidence of modern trinitarian scholars and early Christian writers.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Oeste wrote: "Yes there was, but I believe the obfuscation started with the Lesson (A) and extended through Lesson (E).

"But this whole thread has been entertaining with bad Greek grammar , pseudo-meanings ("count nouns" which for some reason, despite request, are never defined), and even an alternate, revisionist history where the entire early Christian world is cast not only as Arian but truly polytheistic in their theology."

I somehow thought you were capable on your own of finding this common term online or in textbooks.

Plurals, Articles, and Quantity Words // Purdue Writing Lab

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/grammar/count_and_noncount_nouns/count_noncount_nouns_with_articles_adjectives.html

Count and Non-Count Nouns

Your 'polytheistic' accusation is abundantly covered in Lesson B. Your dismissal of it does nothing to discount the overwhelming evidence of modern trinitarian scholars and early Christian writers.
It's just nonsense as nothing is explained.
/anyone or anything can be implied by the word god, without specification
Doesn't work with the bible, at all

/the word was a god means that jesus isn't god
Contradicts argument that god without specification can mean anything, presents another meaningless verse as god can mean anything, so Jesus could be JHVH, here, and the other god could be Beezlebub
 

tigger2

Active Member
"That the translation of Coptic neunoute pe pSaje into standard English [at John 1:1c] as "the Word was a god" is literal, accurate, and unassailable. It is simple, but not simplistic. It is what the Coptic text actually says and literally conveys. Any other translation of it amounts to interpretation or paraphrase." - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/
 

tigger2

Active Member
John 1:1c in all the manuscripts and texts reads 'theos en ho logos.' This is a non-prepositional count noun (theos) used as a predicate noun which was placed before the verb (en, 'was').

I have provided 18 examples parallel to that in John's writings, and all Bibles I have examined translate the predicate noun as indefinite (and using the indefinite article in English).

Where are 18 examples which differ? How about 10 examples? 5 ? ??

There are no examples truly parallel to John 1:1c which are found to be definite (Colwell) or 'qualitative' (Harner/Wallace) in all of John's writings!
 
Last edited:

tigger2

Active Member
For example:

H,W 1. John 4:19 - (“a prophet”) - all Bible translations

John 4:19 is listed by Harner (H) and Daniel B. Wallace (W) as an example parallel to John 1:1c ("god was the word"). That is, it has the singular predicate noun ('god') placed before the verb ("was") in the NT Greek.

John 4:19 in the NT Greek manuscripts reads "prophet are you." The singular predicate noun ("prophet") was placed before the verb in the NT Greek. In the numerous Bibles I have examined this clause is always translated "You are a prophet."

So show me a clause in John's writings (other than John 1:1c, of course) where the singular predicate noun was placed before the verb in the NT Greek and it has been translated in the KJV; RSV; NIV; and NASB as a definite or a 'qualitative' noun.

It would be very helpful to use an interlinear. Several may be found online.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
I somehow thought you were capable on your own of finding this common term online or in textbooks.

Plurals, Articles, and Quantity Words // Purdue Writing Lab

First, I and others on this board are perfectly aware we are conversing with Jehovah Witnesses, and it doesn’t matter what the “Purdue Writing Lab” states or any other web site states. I can open up my history book or encyclopedia and get the year for the fall of Jerusalem. Would you believe it? Of course not! It doesn’t matter what my encyclopedia says if the Watchtower says different! So if I can’t open up a history book or encyclopedia to settle the actual date for the fall of Jerusalem to a JW, why on earth do you suggest I open up a web page to settle on a definition of count nouns??

The only web page that matters, the only facts that matter, the only thing you or any other JW believe is authoritative, is on JW.org and their latest publications. That’s it.

So I am not looking for a count noun definition from Purdue’s Online Writing Lab. I am looking for a count noun definition from JW.org or one of their recent publications.

Remember, it’s the FAITHFUL DISCREET SLAVE that allegedly provides spiritual food for the planet and not Tigger2 or some Purdue web site. At the very least you should be able to provide confirmation that the Watchtower agrees or condones the definitions appearing on Purdue’s Online Writing Lab, because they certainly don’t agree with the rest of the planet regarding the year Jerusalem fell.

Look at what happened with @Hockeycowboy. His response as to why our history books are “wrong” concerning Jerusalem’s fall is that the world is being misled by Satan! I suspect if Purdue’s OWL digress one iota from a Watchtower teaching, you will say the same:

So if Cyrus defeated Babylon in 539 BCE (an ABSOLUTE date), how was Jerusalem to “remain desolate for 70 years” to be fulfilled, beginning in 587 BCE?

Read Revelation 12:9, then tell me this world isn’t being misled by Satan.
Secondly, I was hoping you understood that linguists don’t always agree on the distinctions between mass and count nouns. Nothing you’ve written so far tells me how the Watchtower makes their mass-count distinction. They simply say this word is mass and that word is count, a method that certainly lacks any scholastic rigor.

So we are looking for the tools that the Watchtower uses to distinguish mass from count nouns. Some linguists claim a distinction based on meaning, others on individualization and still more on context. ‘Noodles’ is a count noun. We can have one or many noodles. But ‘Spaghetti’ is mass count noun, but not if you’re speaking Italian. What is and what is not a mass count noun can differ by language. How does the Watchtower account for this, and what rule or rules do they apply when translating? If Italians consider spaghetti a count noun while Americans do not, how would the WT tell or know the difference?? If there are no longer any native speakers of Italian, how would the WT know spaghetti is considered a count noun in Italy? Why wouldn’t they assume the Italians meant it as a mass noun just like it is in English?


Perhaps the WT has published an article somewhere which addresses these particular issues. If so please feel free to cite them. Lacking that, it appears you are ‘running ahead of the chariot’ and substituting your own food for the Watchtower’s. That’s a no-no in the Organization. If the article isn’t there, then it’s not there for a reason. The “Faithful Discreet Slave” only serves food "at he proper time”, so if it’s not there, it’s not the proper time for it to be there. The Watchtower's Governing Board does not give license to anyone to publish “truth” but itself, which is why they ask their flock and the world at large to ignore any web site that claims to have published “food” outside of the Organization.

Look, when you go door to door do you type up your own commentary and stick them in the pamphlets you hand out? If not, why do it here?

This is also why I stated earlier you were “boxed in”. Any Witnesses using your material is similarly "boxed". Worse, if the material used was found to be the product or thinking of apostates no longer within the Organization it could lead to Judicial Review.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Your 'polytheistic' accusation is abundantly covered in Lesson B. Your dismissal of it does nothing to discount the overwhelming evidence of modern trinitarian scholars and early Christian writers.

@Desert Snake has already pointed out “Lesson B” lacked any meaningful context. Look, I can walk into any public school library, pull out a book on ancient Greece and “prove’…by quoting from the book…that the school and school district believe there are gods living on Mount Olympus despite the School Department’s public denial no such creatures live there.

Imagine the horror when I pull out the 5th grade teacher’s lesson plan, which exposes this sordid truth in our schools! What will concerned parents say when they find out Mrs. Murphy drilled little Johnny in front of the class, giving him bad marks for refusing to acknowledge Thor was “a god” of the Norse, all while feigning to be a Christian herself?

And yet it will be right in front of them…18 quotes taken directly from various school books and lesson plans. Worse, I’ll have even more proof that these teachings and books of the school system go back decades without even one school teacher, administrator or book claiming otherwise! :eek:

John 1:1c in all the manuscripts and texts reads 'theos en ho logos.' This is a non-prepositional count noun (theos) used as a predicate noun which was placed before the verb (en, 'was').

We went through this before. Anyone can clearly see that θεός was thrown forward which, unlike your earlier assertion that “word order is meaningless”, actually shows emphasis. If we are to translate it as “a god”…that is a SEPARATE god (logos) who is NOT full Deity then it would have read as follows:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)​

But it wasn’t. Instead it was written as follows:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”​

Which we know is the traditional and orthodox translation of the historic Christian church.

I have provided 18 examples parallel to that in John's writings and all Bibles I have examined translate the predicate noun as indefinite (and using the indefinite article in English).

Of course they would. That’s because English requires these nouns to have an article, but in English a noun like God does not. You’re attempting to use English language conventions to reverse engineer a Greek rule. Language doesn’t work that way. Any rule you develop for Koine Greek has to start with the source rather than the destination language. You can’t use translated English language conventions to reverse engineer a train of thought into the minds of Koine Greek writers. This is doubly true when we consider the subject of articles.
 

tigger2

Active Member
H,W 2. John 18:37 (a) - (“a king”) - all Bibles.

Another clause in John which is parallel to the NT Greek of John 1:1c: the predicate noun basileus (king) is found before the verb. And yet, it is always understood to be an indefinite noun ('a king'). Not definite ('the king'); not 'qualitative' ('kingly,' 'royal,' etc.) but indefinite!

Where are the examples of clauses honestly parallel to John 1:1c that are clearly definite or 'qualitative'?

According to John's own usage, John 1:1c should be understood as 'the word was a god.'
 

tigger2

Active Member
H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”) - most Bibles (including KJV; NASB; NRSV; NIV; RSV; etc.)


Although most trinitarian-translated Bibles at John 6:70 disagree, trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace tries to solve this difficulty by saying that Jesus is actually calling Judas “THE Devil” here, but not in a literal sense. Think about that. Even with this unusual interpretation, we still find that calling Judas “the Devil” in a 'figurative sense' means that Jesus is comparing Judas to Satan in some non-literal sense. He is not really calling Judas the actual Devil, but is merely referring to some quality of Satan that Judas exhibits to some degree.

If that were really the case (although not supported by most trinitarian scholars and Bibles), then the parallel John 1:1c would merely show the Word exhibiting some quality of God to some degree.

No reasonable person would accept any of this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’ where Judas is equally The Devil with Satan!

So why do so many trinitarians accept the very same unreasonable ‘evidence’ as proof that the Word was equally God at John 1:1c?


Where are the examples of clauses honestly parallel to John 1:1c that are clearly definite or 'qualitative'?

According to John's own usage, John 1:1c should be understood as 'the word was a god."
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Although most trinitarian-translated Bibles at John 6:70 disagree, trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace tries to solve this difficulty by saying that Jesus is actually calling Judas “THE Devil” here, but not in a literal sense. Think about that. Even with this unusual interpretation, we still find that calling Judas “the Devil” in a 'figurative sense' means that Jesus is comparing Judas to Satan in some non-literal sense. He is not really calling Judas the actual Devil, but is merely referring to some quality of Satan that Judas exhibits to some degree.

Correct. Men have all been sinners save one. When we sin we show a Satanic rather than a godly quality. That does not make Judas Satan himself any more than showing a godly quality makes us God Himself.

If that were really the case (although not supported by most trinitarian scholars and Bibles), then the parallel John 1:1c would merely show the Word exhibiting some quality of God to some degree.

Why would you think that? Did you forget John 1:1a???

No reasonable person would accept any of this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’ where Judas is equally The Devil with Satan!

Which is why no one ever makes the claim. :rolleyes:

So why do so many trinitarians accept the very same unreasonable ‘evidence’ as proof that the Word was equally God at John 1:1c?

Because of John 1:1a...you know, the pesky clause the WT audience sometimes forgets is there. BTW, there is nothing "unreasonable" about this evidence before you. It's right there in the verse.

According to John's own usage, John 1:1c should be understood as 'the word was a god."

Genesis 1
'In the beginning',

Ever read the Bible?

Absolutely correct @Desert Snake! The Word already "was" (past tense) 'In the beginning'. It's right there in John 1:1a and parallels Genesis 1:1. He may have (a) not read, (b) missed or (c) wants us to forget that part.

Where are the examples of clauses honestly parallel to John 1:1c that are clearly definite or 'qualitative'?

Honestly parallel??? Weren't you arguing that all we need do is dump large swaths of scripture in order to arrive at an "honest parallel" just a few posts ago (post 34)? Then after we "honestly" excluded those verses we "honestly" include only certain other verses for our "analysis" (post 39)? How on earth do we arrive at an honest parallel after doing all that?

What does scripture say about this type of "approach"?:

2 Timothy 3:16-17:

  1. "Certain All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
The approach you advocate to include only "certain" scriptures and exclude others is not how we "reproof", is not how we "correct", and is not how we provide "instruction" for righteousness. We do not exclude irregular verses. We do not limit ourselves to "theos without the article". Such approaches are unscriptural from the outset and for this reason fail to inset within "...the man of God..."

As such, your approach and arguments are at this point redundant, already addressed by the posters on this thread and settled by scripture. There are many instances of anarthrous definite nouns in John. Rather than dump certain scriptures as if it they didn't exist, and then include only certain scriptures as if they did, I strongly recommend we avail ourselves of them all instead. They are God breathed and included in scripture for a reason.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Yes, in the beginning was [Jesus, pre'existant, Jesus was with God, [Triune deity, and the word [Jesus, was God.

John 1:1


John 1:10
 

tigger2

Active Member
H,W John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all

Trinitarian scholars and Bible translators rule the world (numerically) and have insisted that John 1:1c is to be translated "and the Word was God." For many hundreds of years there was no grammatical reason to believe such a strange translation, but trinitarians would not give up on it, for obvious reasons. Then, in 1933, E.C. Colwell came up with his "Colwell's Rule" to "prove", finally, that John 1:1c could be grammatically understood as "and the word was the god ['God']." He did this by insisting that the word order made theos ['a god'] definite ['the god'].


"The god" [ho theos] is how John (and others) intended "God" as a predicate noun in English translation. [See Lessons A (OP) and B (post #59).] Predicate nouns which are parallel to John 1:1c (P.N. count nouns without the definite article found before the verb) are indefinite: "a man," "a prophet," "a robber," etc. [See Lesson C and D.]

Unfortunately, many modern trinitarian scholars have discovered that Colwell's Rule simply doesn't work as they had hoped. They have, instead, adopted an even less likely approach which, using the same word order nonsense, is called 'Qualitative.' Significantly, those who still insist on Colwell's Rule are called heretics by those who insist on the so-called 'Qualitative' Rule.

Even a single scripture shows the impropriety of the “word-order” approach for this scripture: John 10:1 has this word order in the NT Greek text, “that [one] thief is and robber” [the first predicate noun is before the verb ['is'] and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber.” It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber (Colwell's). And it is never “qualitatively” rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness ('qualitative') and is a robber. .”

Furthermore, if word order in relation to the verb (as in the trinitarian ‘rules’ to make Jn 1:1c say “God” rather than the grammatically accurate ‘a god’), why would John ever use such a clause without a verb? Examine Jn 4:24 which has given translators so much trouble: there is no verb to tell us if 'spirit' might be a definite, indefinite, or “qualitative” ‘spirit.’ If John had really been aware of such a word-order rule, he surely would have used a verb here to clarify the actual meaning!

The word-order scheme designed to give a trinitarian twist to John 1:1c is rarely, if ever, used in translation of any other predicate count noun found in John's writings, not even by noted trinitarian translators!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
@tigger2 it amazes me that this argument still rages when we know already that there is a pseudo-god that has the ability to "blind the minds of unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)......and professed Christians are among those whom Jesus rejects at the judgment as being "workers of lawlessness". (Matthew 7:21-23) It is not man's laws that they are breaking, but God's.

If there is no direct statement from either the Father or the Son, plainly stating an equal relationship in a "godhead", then it is assumed by the misinterpretation of scripture to be the case. More importantly, even suggesting such a relationship, if there is no direct statement confirming it, is blasphemous and accountability must apply because this is a breach of the First Commandment...(Exodus 20:3)...breaking God's law.

The one glaring obstacle in all of the translations that render John 1:1 as "the Word was God" is the way the definite article is omitted in English.

Here is John 1:1 in the NASB...
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Now here it is in the Greek Interlinear...
" In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

There is one little word missing in the English translation that is very obvious in the whole verse...."ho".(the)
We see "ho logos" and "ho theos" which in the case of "the Word" is accepted without question. What we do not see however is "the God" translated into English when it is clearly there in the Greek.

If the English translation was authentic and not biased towards the trinity then it should read...

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was God."

Since "theos" was used in Greek to describe any whom they assumed to have divine power, then Jesus is rightly "a god" in their definition of the word...he is just not THE God. The definite article is omitted in this verse because the Word is not THE God....he is 'a god-like one'...a" divine mighty one", accurately described in the Greek.

In verse 14 of John 1 it says that "the Word became flesh" so the divine person of the pre-human Jesus, who was "with God" "in the beginning" was sent by the Father to become a human on earth.

The one "sent" is a "servant" of the one who sent him (Acts 4:30).....and the one sent calls his Father "the only true God" (John 17:3) so, there is no equality of Father and Son ever even hinted at in the scriptures. But it amazes me how important this doctrine is to those in Christendom. Who told them it must be true?

What would happen if Jesus wasn't God? How would that change the ransom value of his sacrifice? :shrug:
Beats me....
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
Trinitarian scholars and Bible translators rule the world (numerically) and have insisted that John 1:1c is to be translated "and the Word was God."

Absolutely! Monotheism edged out polytheism long ago, but every once in a while you'll get someone who claims that "true" Christians of the 1st century were polytheists replete with their own historical "facts".

For many hundreds of years there was no grammatical reason to believe such a strange translation, but trinitarians would not give up on it, for obvious reasons.

Absolutely! One of more "obvious reasons" was because it's precisely what John 1:1 stated.

"The god" [ho theos] is how John (and others) intended "God" as a predicate noun in English translation. [See Lessons A (OP) and B (post #59).

English didn't even exist as a language back in the first century! How could John have "intended" it to be translated into English just the way you claim??? Who are these "others" that intended it the same way?

Look, we can go through this again but at this point I think I'll just start pointing to my prior posts.
 

Oeste

Well-Known Member
@tigger2 it amazes me that this argument still rages when we know already that there is a pseudo-god that has the ability to "blind the minds of unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)......and professed Christians are among those whom Jesus rejects at the judgment as being "workers of lawlessness". (Matthew 7:21-23) It is not man's laws that they are breaking, but God's.

Your confusing "WT laws" with "God's law". The two are not the same.

If the English translation was authentic and not biased towards the trinity then it should read...

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE God, and the Word was God."

Excellent Deeje!!

I wouldn't have a problem with your translation at all. Now if only we could get the WT to change the NWT...

What would happen if Jesus wasn't God? How would that change the ransom value of his sacrifice? :shrug:

Beats me....

It would be catastrophic! Jesus died for the sins of mankind, Not only past sins but future sins as well. In order to do that you need an ransom sacrifice that is of equal or greater value. Simply being born a "perfect" man to "pay for the sins of Adam" was not enough. If that were the case, God would have allowed Herod to find Jesus, kill him, and the job would be done!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Your confusing "WT laws" with "God's law". The two are not the same.

Exodus 20:3 is the first Commandment and Christendom has put another god in place of the Father....an inferior god who never once claimed equality with his own God and Father.

Excellent Deeje!!

I wouldn't have a problem with your translation at all. Now if only we could get the WT to change the NWT...

Why change what is the only truthful translation? Jehovah is not the only "theos". The Greeks had lots of them.

Jesus acknowledged that even Jehovah himself called human judges "gods" because of their divine authority.

John 10:31-37 ESV
"The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”[theos] 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? [theos] 35 If he called them gods [theos] to whom the word of God [ho theos] came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? [hyos ho theos] 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me".

How many times is "theos" used in that passage? But it is not just Jehovah....but any divine entity or one authorized by God fits that definition. There are only two mentions of Jehovah [ho theos] in that passage. Jesus called himself "son of the God".

It would be catastrophic! Jesus died for the sins of mankind, Not only past sins but future sins as well. In order to do that you need an ransom sacrifice that is of equal or greater value. Simply being born a "perfect" man to "pay for the sins of Adam" was not enough. If that were the case, God would have allowed Herod to find Jesus, kill him, and the job would be done!

Really? Who told you that?
Since there is no trinity, the one sent to save mankind was a servant of THE God and he was sent from heaven on a mission, which required him to offer a perfect life for the perfect life that Adam lost for his children. No more and no less.

Herod finding Jesus to destroy him as an infant would not have resulted in any success of the mission. Jesus was baptized and anointed at the age of thirty. He received holy spirit and gave the "lost sheep" an opportunity to become part of his Kingdom as rulers and priests. He left a record of all the things that the Kingdom would accomplish....physical and spiritual healing, food for all, and a basis for making decisions about their faith. He then gave them the greatest example of love ever made. (John 15:13)

For God to incarnate would have been overkill to the max. An overpayment so huge that he could have saved the human race billions of times over. It is not what the ransom demanded.....aside from the fact that an immortal God cannot die.

Who gave Jesus the holy spirit? Who gave Jesus his message? Who gave Jesus his strength and his teachings? Who did Jesus pray to? Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? I believe that your trinity is blasphemous nonsense.
 
Top