Refuting the Trinity Doctrine!

[kepha31]

The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to understanding the Blessed Trinity. We are made in the image and likeness of God. That means the persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children. We understand God by looking at the human family as an analogy. Why? Because we are made in HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS.

 

[Mark2020]

Also important to note is that the Syriac Pe****ta clearly uses "Eloah" (Singular) for 1:1c and Elohim for 1:1b.

Can you put the verse? Do you have a link?
That's what I could find:
Analysis of Pe****ta verse 'John 1:1'

John 1:1 - [FONT=&quot]ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀ [/FONT]
They are both Aloha, meaning God.

Note the translations:
(Etheridge) IN the beginning was the Word, [Meltho.] and the Word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the Word himself.
(Murdock) In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(Lamsa) THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.

 

[Mark2020]

Coptic is the closest ancient Biblical language that corresponds to English.
...

Do you even know Coptic?
Indefinite article in Coptic doesn't correspond to 'a' in English.
For example,
(1 John 4:8 [NIV]) : God is love.
(1 John 4:8 [coptic]) : ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲡⲉ
ⲟⲩ is the indefinite article.
I'll add the transliteration: efnouti ouaghapi pe

 

[Mark2020]

Good point!

The Hebrew NT at John 1:1(B) has Heb., ( Ha-Elohim ) lit., "...the God(s)..."

And at John 1:1(c) Heb., ( elohim ) literally: "...god(s)..." plural

Are you trying to be funny?
Never heard this:
(Genesis 1:1) בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(Genesis 1:1 [NIV]) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here Elohim(אֱלֹהִ֑ים) means God.

 

[sojourner]

What is curious is the lengths people will go to argue John out of what he so obviously says.
The English translators have, across centuries, taken great care to render the passage as accurately as possible, in order to retain a subtlety of meaning apparent in the Greek, but not so much in the English.

John means exactly what it says: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us."
John's not arguing for two gods. At all. He's arguing for a pluralistic understanding of God.

I really don't know why this has to be so difficult. The rampant and out-of-control eisegetic gymanistics utilized to get John 1 to fit the JW preconceived notion of the "not-trinity" is entertaining, though.

 

[Mark2020]

What is curious is the lengths people will go to argue John out of what he so obviously says.

Yes, I think next time we'll see some East-Asian translations.
I'll put the Arabic translation:
(John 1:1 [SVD]) فِي الْبَدْءِ كَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ، وَالْكَلِمَةُ كَانَ عِنْدَ اللهِ، وَكَانَ الْكَلِمَةُ اللهَ.
اللهَ means God

Not to mention dozens of other translations:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Mark2020]

And I particularly like this one:

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
(John 1:1) In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

 

[ResLight]

Wow..a JW quoting from the Douay Rheims bible????

I am not with the JWs, although I doubt that they would have any objection to using the Douay-Rheims version.

Maybe you'd want to post from John in the Douay Rheims bible....that will help you out..
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God.

And thus, the Word is mostly definitely not "God" whom he was with. Who was the Word with? Jesus tells us in John 17:1,3,5 that it was the only true God, his God and Father, whom he was with. Thus the Greek word often transliterated as THEOS is used of the Word in a different manner than meaning "the only true God." Forms of the Greek word THEOS are based on forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as EL, which is not only used of the Most High Yahweh, but is also used of men, angels and even things.

The basic meaning is might, power, strength, etc. As such all power, all might, all strength in the world can only come from the only true Might of the Universe, the God and Father of Jesus. There is no might in the universe aside from the God of Israel.

An idol, formed by the hands of men, have no power to perform anything that might be attributed to that idol, and thus all such “gods” are by nature have no might, no power, thus are false gods, false proclaimed mighty ones.

But, in the Bible, the Hebrew word for deity, meaning might, strength, power, is used of many besides the only Most High. And yet at the same time no one would think of applying the term false god to such usage. When considering forms of the Hebrew word *EL*, that this word is used to mean other than God Almighty or a false god may be readily seen by anyone who will carefully note the following texts from the King James Version*, in which English translations of the Hebrew word El are in denoted by *..*:

“It is in the *power* of my hand.” (Genesis 31:29) Should we think that this means either in the only true God of man, or in the false god of my hand?

“There shall be no *might* in thine hand.” (Deuteronomy 28:32) Are we to think that this means no only true God in my hand, or that it means no false god in my hand?

“Neither is it in our *power*.” (Nehemiah 5:5) Again, are we to think that this should mean either “our only true God”, or else, our false god? I do not know of any translator who would think, nor do I know of any translation that renders the Hebrew word in this verse as either “God” or “god”.

“Like the *great* mountains.” (Psalm 36:6) Some translations do, in this verse, render the Hebrew form of EL with the word God, as does the World English: “the mountains of God.” Most translations, however, do express with some word meaning either mighty, great, high, etc. Regardless, it still offers an example of how translators recognize that the word may, when applied to something other than Yahweh, be understood as meaning “great”, “mighty”, etc.

“In the *power* of thine hand to do it.” (Proverbs 3:27) Again, I do not know of any translation that renders the Hebrew word for “God” here as either “God” or “god”. It should be apparent that the word is being used in a sense other than meaning the only true God or false god.

“Who among the sons of the *mighty*.” (Psalm 89:6) Here, the KJV uses the word “mighty” to express the Hebrew form for the word “God”. Some do render it as “God” in this verse, thus as “sons of God”; many, however, argue that the context would indicate that it refers to sons of mighty human rulers or men of influence. Either way, however, the fact that many Bible scholars do recognize that word for “God” here may refer to other in some sense other than as the only true God or a false god.

“God standeth in the congregation of the *mighty*.” (Psalm 82:1) The King James Version here renders the word for “God’ as ‘mighty’, denoting the body that is referred to in Psalm 82:6 as “sons of the Most High”. Other translations render the word for “god” here in various ways, “gods”, “divine”, “judges”, etc., a few render it as “God”. Regardless, the KJV and some other translations recognize its use in a sense other than that of the only true God or as a false god.

“Who is like unto thee, O Lord [Yahweh] among the *gods* [mighty ones or ruling ones]?” (Exodus 15:11) Here the word for “God” in the KJV is rendered with as “gods”; I include this because the Complete Jewish Bible and the Jewish Publication Society translation render the word for “God” here as “mighty”.

“Give unto the Lord [Yahweh] of ye *mighty*.” (Psalm 29:1) The word for “god” here in the KJV is rendered as “mighty”. It should be obvious that the word for “god” here does not mean either false gods or the only true God. Some other translations render the word as “godly”, “mighty ones”, “heavenly beings”, etc., but, as yet, I have not found one translation that renders the word for “God” as either “God” or in some way to denote a false god.

“The *mighty* God even the Lord [Yahweh].” (Psalm 50:1) The KJV renders one of the words for “God” in this verse as “mighty”, not as “God” or a false god. This could be rendered as does Green’s Literal: “God, Jehovah God”, but most translators have rendered one of the words for “God” as meaning “mighty”, or something similar.

“The *strong* among the mighty shall speak.” — Ezekiel 32:21) The KJV renders to the word for “God” in this verse as “strong”. I know of no translation that renders the word for “God” in this verse as with “God” or in some way to denote a “false god.” While it could be thought of as a reference to false gods, translators still provide us with thought that the word is used in the sense of “strong”, or “powerful”, without any thought of either it being a reference to the only true God or a false god.

Indeed, since all through the Scriptures, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is always presented as one person, and not once more than one person, and since the New Testament distinguishes Jesus from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-36; Hebrews 1:1,2), and since the Hebrews commonly recognized such usage as applied to others than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the default assumption should be that this is the kind of meaning should be given to the very, very few places where Jesus is referred to by means of the words for “God”. Indeed, to think otherwise would result in circular thinking, that is, "since we believe Jesus is the only true God, then, when we find the words for God applied to Jesus, we believe and offer this as proof that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

At any rate, based on the Hebraic usage, this would mean that in John 1:1c, THEOS is being used in the sense of mighty, "the Word was mighty."

All of the spirit beings, by “nature” of the superior might given to them by the Almighty are scripturally designated as el or elohim, and thus can be spoken of as divine — mighty — in being. — Psalm 8:5 (compare Hebrews 2:9; also Psalm 50:1 and 96:4 could be speaking of angels as elohim); 45:6,7; Isaiah 9:6,7; John 1:1,2; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Ephesians 1:20,22; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2-4,8; 1 Peter 1:21; 3:22.

Likewise, the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15), who existed before all the creation that was created by means of him (Colossians 1:17), can certainly also have the term theos applied to him without meaning that he is the only true God who sent him. Indeed, before he became a man, he “was” a mighty spirit being, having a heavenly glory that he did not possess while he was a human. — John 17:5; 1 Corinthians 15:40.

On the other hand, in order to get trinity out of John 1:1, the trinitarian has to assume and read into the verse several things: (1) that two persons of the trinity-god are being spoken of here, and (2) that God whom the Logos was with is their alleged “first person” of the trinity, and (3) that THEOS applied to the Logos is their alleged “second person” of the trinity. Then, (4) they have add to these assumptions that these two alleged persons of their trinity are both the same one true God. Rather than assuming and adding such to the scriptures, it is best to simply let the scriptures have their own say, applying spiritual revealing with spiritual revealing. — 1 Corinthians 2:10,13.

 

[ResLight]

[3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

John 1:3
panta di autou egeneto kai chwris autou
ALL (THINGS) THROUGH HIM CAME TO BE, AND APART FROM HIM
3956 1223 0846_3 1096 2532 5565 0846_3
egeneto oude hen
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING).
1096 3761 1520
ho gegonen
WHICH HAS COME TO BE
3739 1096
Westcott & Hort Interlinear

Yes, the only true God made "all" the world of mankind through Jesus. (John 1:10) God created none without His Word, Jesus. "Panta" above is a form of the word often transliterated as "Pas" (Strong's #3956). A form of the word PAS is used Romans 8:22:

For we know that all [Strong's #3956] creation groans and travails in pain together until now.

What was the "whole creation" or "all creation" that Paul was writing about? He speaks of this "creation" in Romans 8:19, saying: "For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it." What "creation" was subjected to vanity? Did it include the angels who always able to see the face of God in heaven? (Matthew 18:10) Were these angels groaning and travailing in pain, under subjection to vanity? Ecclesiasted 1:2,3 lets us know what this whole creation is that was subjected to vanity: "'Vanity of vanities,' says the Preacher; 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.' What does man gain from all his labor in which he labors under the sun?" It is "man" that is the "whole creation" that has been subjected vanity; it was the "world" (kosmos) of man that was made through the Logos. (John 1:10) This, world (Kosmos), that God made through His Word, became contaminated with sin, not by God, but by a man. (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21) Once man had disobeyed, however, God did subject man to a crooked dying existence under the sun of vanity and chasing after the wind, from which man could make himself straight, justified, righteous, even when given a law covenant by which one could have justifed himself through obedience. -- Ecclesiastes 1:13-15; Romans 3:20; 5:12-19; 8:3,20-22; Galatians 2:16; 3:11.

The point is, however, that the “all creation” that is being referred to in Romans 8:22 is not the angels, the stars, the sun, the moon, etc., but rather the world of mankind that has been subjected to vanity (Romans 8:20) due to Adam’s sin. (Romans 5:12-19) Thus, absolutely “all creation” in the universe is not included in “all creation”, neither in Romans 8:20, nor in what is said in John 1:3. Indeed, if one does a study of the usage of all forms of the word “pas” in the New Testament, one will see that this word rarely means absolutely everything in the universe, but that it is always understood in the context as well as common evidence. John 1:10 indicates that in John 1:3, the all that is being referred to the world of mankind, as it is in Romans 8:22. The only true God (John 17:1,3) is the Creator (Mark 10:6; 13:19); the prehuman Jesus is the instrument — the agent — that the Creator used to bring into being the creation that is being spoken of.

Additionally, the negative usage of terms such as “not one” is also subject to what is being spoken of. In Hebrews 2:8, for instance, in speaking what has been subjected to man as spoken of in Psalm 8:6, we read: “For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now [due to the sin of Adam, man has been subjected to futility -- Romans 5:12-19; 8:20] we don’t see all things subjected to him [man], yet.” Note that the scripture says that God left nothing that is not subject to him (man). Does these mean that God subjected absolutely everything in the entire universe to man? Absolutely not! Psalm 8:7,8 describes the “all things” that was subjected to man, which corresponds with Genesis 1:26,28. All that was subjected to man pertains to all the earth, not absolutely all in the universe.

Likewise, in John 1:3, that which is being spoken as "all" and of which none came into existence without the Word is pertaining to the world of mankind into which the Word came, and which world did not recognize him. -- John 1:10.

 

[Mark2020]

At any rate, based on the Hebraic usage, this would mean that in John 1:1c, THEOS is being used in the sense of mighty, "the Word was mighty."

Now we're inventing new meanings to the words!
I fail to understand in your logic why would God create someone else who would create everything? When it is specifically mentioned that God created everything.

 

[ResLight]

[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Not being of Adamic dying stock, "in him was life, and the life was the light of men." The sinless and obedient life of the Logos in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7) served as the light of men, the light of the world. Jesus said "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." (John 9:5) Thus, the good news is that Jesus, having proven that a sinless man could perfectly obey God, "brought life and incorruption [non corrupted, straightness, justness, righteousness] to light." (2 Timothy 1:10) He provided the glimpse of how the groaning creation, now under bondage of corruption, will be enabled to "be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (Romans 8:21) The world, however, living in darkness due to sin, "did not comprehend" the light was in the world. (John 1:10) Every man now under the vail of Satan, will however, be enlightened in the age to come, the "last day", the day of judgment, during which time Satan will be abyssed, so that the heathen will not be deceived, and the book(s) now closed to them will be opened, and they then be judged by means of what is revealed to them in that last day. -- Isaiah 2:2-4; 25:7; John 1:9; 12:47,48; Acts 17:31; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Revelation 12:9; 20:1-3,12.

 

[Mark2020]

I fail to understand in your logic why would God create someone else who would create everything? When it is specifically mentioned that God created everything.

And I think that the meaning in this verse:
"3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
is clear, and you don't have to impose your own doctrine to explain it.
Especially, since the previous verses have "in the beginning"

 

[Mark2020]

egeneto oude hen
CAME TO BE NOT BUT ONE (THING).
1096 3761 1520

Is this a joke?
"Not but one"? Where did you get the "But" from?

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν
http://concordances.org/greek/3761.htm

οὐδέ:
Original Word: οὐδέ
Part of Speech: Conjunction,Negative
Transliteration: oude
Phonetic Spelling: (oo-deh')
Short Definition: neither, nor, not even
Definition: neither, nor, not even, and not.


From
Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature :
οὐδέ negative conjunction, combination of οὐ and δέ (Hom.+).
① and not, nor joins neg. sentences or clauses to others of the same kind.
② also not, not either, neither .
③ not even.

And here's a proper interlinear:
http://interlinearbible.org/john/1-3.htm

 

[outhouse]

how can you attempt to define a deity that Constantine forced bishops to define???

 

[`mud]

Same old question:
Assuming that God created Heaven, and the Earth,
and following that miracle, He created light, and the darkness.
When did He create the water that was everywhere,
that deepness that He hovered over.
~
From where did water come ?
~
`mud

 

[ResLight]

BTW, JW's always forget that the INFINITE was offended. The FINITE can not atone to the INFINITE. There is nothing the finite can give to the infinte...

If a perfect man was offended, then a perfect man could provide the ransom.

I would need some clarification to what is meant by the above along with any scriptural support, if any, for whatever conclusion the above is meant to convey. Is the thought that Jesus had to be God in order to provide the ransom?

Regardless, it was indeed the "man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all." -- 1 Timothy 2:5,6.

It was a sinless man who trespassed against God through disobedience; it is a sinless man, one who had not fallen short of the glory of God through sin, that is needed to take the place of the first man by paying the condemnation that God had placed upon the first man, and thus having the condemnation placed upon the second sinless man. Jesus did this when he died for our sins, paying the wages of sin for all who are dying by means of Adam's disobedience, thus releasing all dying in Adam from the condemnation. This is what is presented in the Bible, and I will just stay by that. -- Isaiah 53:6,11,12; Romans 3:26; 6:23; 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:3,21,22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9; 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 1:29; 3:5.

If the thought is that Jesus had to be God in order to pay the price for sin, In all that was revealed by means of God’s Holy Spirit through the apostles, there is nothing at all said about God’s death would be needed to suffice for sin. God did not sin and bring death upon mankind, thus God’s death is not required to offset sin. God did not give himself to himself as a ransom, an offsetting price, for sin, but it was the “man Christ Jesus” who gave himself as an offering to God as a sacrificial lamb for the sin of the world. -- John 1:29; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 10:10,12; 1 Peter 3:18.

God, in his infinite wisdom, condemned all of Adam’s offspring in one man, so that only one righteous man would be needed to pay the price for sin. That one man was not God, but was the man Christ Jesus.

Paul also wrote:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. — Romans 8:3, NAS.
​

Thus, if God died for our sins, or if Jesus was God in the flesh as many have claimed, what would that mean? It would mean that Christ did not condemn sin in the flesh, but rather that he justified sin in the flesh, proving that Adam would have needed to have been God in order to obey God. It is only because Jesus was indeed a human being, having the full crown of glory a little lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), sinless — never having fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5) — that Jesus’ obedience condemned sin the flesh, and at the same time by his sacrifice, made the way for God to remain just, while yet justifying the sinner. — Romans 3:26.

Since it was God who was transgressed against, it was God, to whom the price must be paid, or given, to offset the transgression. It was a man who transgressed (committed offense) not God, that is the scriptural point, and thus the redemptive price to offset that transgression requires an obedient man, not God. — 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Romans 5:12-19.

Indeed, in the Bible, it is ONLY a human sacrifice that is ever mentioned as being what was acceptable to take away sin. The Bible NOWHERE says that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself for sin, or that for Jesus to have been a sinless and obedient man, that he had to have been God Almighty.

 

[ResLight]

Now we're inventing new meanings to the words!
I fail to understand in your logic why would God create someone else who would create everything? When it is specifically mentioned that God created everything.

By my demonstrating the Biblical usage of words, and making what should evident application of that usage to one whom I demonstrated from scriptures is not the only true God, I am being accused of inventing new meanings to the words. Actually, it was Athanasius and those who have followed him that have invented one new meanings and terminology after another in order to make it appear that Bible supports the added-on trinity dogma.

God created everything; all that God, whom the Logos was with (John 1:1,2), created through the Logos (John 1:3,10), or by means of Jesus (Colossians 1:1-3,10-16), of course, by common evidence, would not include the Logos who was the firstborn creature created in the image of the unipersonal God (Colossians 1:15), just as it self-evident that when the scripture says that the unipersonal God of Jesus subjected all things under the foot of Jesus, that He (the unipersonal God of Jesus who is also the unipersonal God of the church -- 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 1:2,3 who did the subjecting in not included. -- Colossians 1:15; Ephesians 1:17,22; 1 Corinthians 15:27.

I fail to under the Logic of making the firstborn creature into his own God.

 

[outhouse]

in order to make it appear that Bible supports the added-on trinity dogma.

and it doesnt outside of imagination

 

[outhouse]

I fail to under the Logic of making the firstborn creature into his own God.

mythology

 

[Mark2020]

By my demonstrating the Biblical usage of words...

No, the words you mentioned, El and Elohim are Hebrew. You didn't mention Theos (the Greek word used in NT). You just supposed that it would mean Mighty.

Original Word: θεός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: theos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh'-os)
Short Definition: God, a god
Definition: (a) God, (b) a god, generally.

You repeated your words. You didn't answer my question. You might want to read my last couple of posts here.