1. 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!

Featured The Bible declares that Jesus is God

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Rick B, May 27, 2017.

  1. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +71
    Religion:
    Christian
    This post is intended to address a subject which has been argued a number of times. I have read some and briefly engaged some of those who reject the deity of Christ because they say that the Bible does not state the words “Jesus is God”. I believe this argument is fallacious, violating the word-concept fallacy. Also it demonstrates a presupposed bias when so many Scriptures identify Christ as divine, attributing to Him many of the divine names given to God. I do not intend to deal with the many New Testament texts ascribing Old Testament references of Jehovah to Jesus Christ. Nor the many references equating Him as Lord in the N.T. with Kurios (Lord) in the Septuagint. I will only use the Apostle John in this post in whose writings reveal the Deity of Christ.

    Revelation 19:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

    This section in Revelation is dealing with the coming of Christ. The Apostle John assigns a descriptive name to Jesus “The Word of God” (Gr. ho logos ho theos). This identifying Christ as “Logos”, the “Word”, is also used by John in the Prologue to his Gospel: John 1:1-18

    John 1:1-18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    The Deity of Jesus Christ

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    The Witness John

    6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

    9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

    The Word Made Flesh

    14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

    Note verse 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi). The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. “and the Word was with God…the Logos has been in communion and communication with God for eternity as well. The verb is the same as the first clause, and the preposition pros (“with”) pictures for us face-to-face communication. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. We have the same situation in 1.1c.The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase “and God was the Word” for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term “God” is the predicate nominative, the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term “God” by placing it first in the clause – this is not just a “divine nature” as in something like the angels have – rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as “Deity”). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity.”

    What he wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from “God” (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa – there are two persons under discussion here.

    John 1:1 tells us some extremely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John’s mind – the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God.

    John goes on to gives to Jesus another descriptive name: “The Light”, the “True Light”, the “Light of the world”.

    Verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

    The Word did not eternally exist in the form of flesh; rather, at a particular point in time He became flesh. This is the incarnation.

    Verse 18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB

    He first asserts that no one has “seen God at any time.” Now, the Old Testament tells us that men have indeed seen God in the past – Isaiah saw God on His throne in Isaiah 6; Abraham walked with Yahweh in Genesis 18. So what does John mean? He defines for us that the one he is speaking of here is the Father – that is, no one has seen the Father at any time. OK, then who was it that was seen by Isaiah or by Abraham?

    John tells us – the unique God. Here the phrase is monogenes theos. There is a textual variant here. Many manuscripts have monogenes huios (unique Son) – and the KJV follows this tradition. But the strongest reading is “unique God.” How are we to understand this?

    The term “monogenes” is used only of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Jesus is here described as the “unique God” – John is not asserting a separate deity from the Father. Rather, this ‘unique God” is the one who is eternally in fellowship with the Father. Even when discussing the “separateness” of the Father and the Son as persons, John is quick to emphasize the unity of the divine Persons in their eternal fellowship together. Here John teaches, again, the eternal and central fact of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    The unique God makes the Father known – He “explains’ Him. What we know of the Father we know because of the revelation of the Son. We know what the Father is like because we know what Jesus Is like. Here the Son’s function as the revelator of the Father is clearly set forth, and this is directly in line with the usage of the term Logos in the Prologue. Other New Testament writers use the same theme – for Paul Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” and for the writer of Hebrews Jesus is ‘the express image of His (the Father’s) person…” Both writers (or maybe just one writer if Paul indeed wrote Hebrews) are emphasizing the role of Jesus as the revealer of the Father. In the same way, this answers the above question regarding who it was, in John’s opinion, that was seen of Abraham and Isaiah. We have already had occasion to note that John will directly assert that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in the person of Yahweh (12:39ff), and could it be that this is the explanation for Jesus’ statement in John 8:56? Did Abraham “see the day of Jesus” when he walked with Him by the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1)?

    The conclusion is obvious throughout these few verses:

    If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13

    And if that same Word is God. Jn.1:1-18

    Then Jesus is God.

    Special thanks to James R White
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,481
    Ratings:
    +1,100
    Religion:
    seeking
    "God" is made up of "the Father" and "the Son". The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. Both make up God. It is just like if there is a man whose last name is Jones and he has a son whose last mane is also Jones. They are two separate people but they are both Jones. God is like a last name. Father and Son are both God but are separate persons.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    28,620
    Ratings:
    +9,923
    Religion:
    dystopian Christian
    I think that you are overstating by saying the Bible declares it. There would have to be a direct quote. For example "Glory to God in the heavens and on Earth, peace, good will towards men" is a declaration. Instead what you have are possible inferences, and they can all be explained by saying Jesus believes that God dwells in people. The lack of a declaration is significant.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    65,329
    Ratings:
    +23,386
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    So?
    To such Conservatives, coming from an Apostle and being in the Bible makes it as good as a direct quote because the authors of the Bible were allegedly guided by Holy Ghost.
    I've also heard it described as being like water, in that water can be a gas, liquid, or solid, but it's still the same water despite having different forms.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +71
    Religion:
    Christian
    Did you read the inspired statements describing the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ?
    "Declare" - Pronounce or assert (a person or a thing) to be something specified. en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/declare
    Clearly "declare" is an acceptable word considering the context.


     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,902
    Ratings:
    +9,179
    Prepositions are very important: With is used for more than one person coming together. From in one definition is something coming from or is a product of an origin of something else. Of works the same way. In something means one thing has to exist for the other to go into that object or person. And so forth.

    In the OT, god's words were vocal. They were authority and the message to his chosen people. They were important. People didn't listen to the authority of the his words, so they sinned. Word-meaning message from god.

    In the NT, jesus christ was born. When he was baptized, god (his father) gave him the authority to speak in his father's behalf and sharing the same divinity of his father (my father and I are one). As such, christ became the Word of god not of christ.

    Christ became the word of god. Not the word of Christ. OF meaning christ's words came from the only person who can take ownership of those words which is god the father (why do you ask me, everything I speak of comes from my father who sent me).

    On that note (I had to cut it short due to space)

    Word meaning message-god's message of salvation. Since no one can see god, he sent his son as an representation (or image) of himself-the word-so that others can witness the Word/god's message and be saved through christ-the message of salvation.

    As such, John is speaking of jesus christ-the savior sent by god. Word of god; son of god. And so forth.

    None says Jesus IS god.

    Of course the Word (God's message) was with him. He was the one that has the message of salvation. In order for christians to be saved, he couldn't send the message by himself as he tried in the OT because people continued to sin. So, he sent an image of his words (Meaning, he is the origin/father of the message of salvation) by jesus christ in the flesh.

    It's a metaphor of the authority and message of god in the flesh.

    God can't testify on his own behalf. So Jesus/the message of salvation came from god (just as your words come from your mouth) instead of vocally as in the OT, but through flesh so that people like yourself can be saved since you can't see god the father face to face.

    This is speaking of the message of god. Jesus christ, the flesh, is a metaphor for the message of salvation. Hence the term "jesus the savior." Whenever you hear referrence to jesus christ, think of it as the message from god.

    Son of god.
    Son of man
    Image of god

    and so forth.

    The Word-the authoritative message of god the father-is invisible. You can''t see words. In the OT people didn't obey the words of god. People tried to "see his face" and was turned to salt.

    So, god made his word flesh. He created a full, one hundred percent human being, and by baptism gave him (not himself) the authority to speak on his behalf. The speach-the words-from jesus (and jesus said himself) does not come from Jesus but from his father. From meaning the origin isn't from jesus.

    Of course the Word (the message of god) is eternal.

    Don't mistake that for human flesh, though. You're not saved by sacrifice in the flesh but in the spirit. Once you see jesus as god, you make jesus an idol. You're being saved by flesh when only the spirit can be saved-that's the message. Flesh is sin. Spirit is not.

    Repeat from above.

    Hence why there needed to be a visible image of god's Word/message.

    It is very easy to understand. It doesn't invalidate jesus purpose and who he is. It just means because he is flesh, he can actually die like humans can and be resurrected as god promised he would do for christians.

    The only way that can happen is to believe that jesus is the savior, as the son of god. Once you think jesus-the flesh-saves you, you make jesus an idol.

    Jesus and moses and god taught against that.

    Why do you call me good. The only good comes from the father who sent me.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +71
    Religion:
    Christian
    While you are giving your opinion concerning these Scriptural statements concerning Jesus, I am more interested in an exegetical attempt to deny them.
     
  8. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,902
    Ratings:
    +9,179
    What do you mean deny them?

    It's black and white in the bible. No vague language. Jesus is the word of god. God has the message; he is the owner of the message of salvation. Jesus confirmed that when he told his disciples that the words he speaks of isn't from himself but from his father.

    That does not mean jesus is not important. I just think it's an ego or idolism to make jesus god when him being human doesn't mean he is like christians. Same as Moses and the prophets. They were god's chosen people.

    Are you saying god is a liar for making a human speak (express words/message/Word caps because it's from god) on his behalf as an image of himself?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +71
    Religion:
    Christian
    @Carlita By the way the text says plainly "The Word became flesh" not Christ became the word as you said.
     
  10. Rick B

    Rick B Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Ratings:
    +71
    Religion:
    Christian
    I think you need to to reread my post.
     
  11. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,902
    Ratings:
    +9,179
    What do you mean by deny them?

    I can't get the @Name alerts only the quote ones. Don't know why.

    Your title says jesus is god. He is not. He is just the message of salvation and god owns that message not christ.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,306
    Ratings:
    +1,332
    Religion:
    Non Religious/ Loves Religions
    Question

    What is your understanding of the below verses. (They are after Jesus died)

    Rev 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name. 13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." This is Jesus talking after his death.

    1 Corinthians 11:3" But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."
     
  13. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,306
    Ratings:
    +1,332
    Religion:
    Non Religious/ Loves Religions
    Well, a father and a son are still two distinct beings. So there would exist two Gods then according two this analogy, but the one comes from the other. Similar to Zeus being the son of Kronos. Polytheism works this way. So Zeus and Kronos would have the same divine essence (like DNA) but Have different personalities therefore they are individual gods.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,857
    Ratings:
    +8,327
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    This appears a long winded way of trying to make sense of verses like John 1:1. However lets consider some other words of John about Jesus:

    1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time
    John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of Himself
    John 7:29 He sent me
    John 8:28 My Father taught me
    John 12:49-50 as the father told me
    John 14:28 My father is greater than I

    So Jesus is clearly distinct from God, therefore he can not possibly be God, unless you want to have two Gods (polytheism).

    Further consideration needs to be given to the fact that at no point does Jesus claim to be God.

    The difficulty lies in trying to understand the word logos can be understood in a myriad of ways:

    For example the author of the gospel of John may have been referring to Philo's perspective of the Logos:

    Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. wizanda

    wizanda One Accepts All Religious Texts
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,421
    Ratings:
    +1,968
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Most of your case is based on the made up Gospel of John; Yeshua doesn't go around using "Ego I-mee" (I Am) about himself in the Synoptic Gospels, and warned the whole world will be deceived by those that come after using it in his name (Luke 21:8). :innocent:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. AlexandertheGreat

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    27
    Ratings:
    +26
    Religion:
    Islam
    The bible states Jesus is the son of God and the word of God, part of a Holy Trinity of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. For Jesus to be the son of God he must have a mother which can only be the Holy Spirit.
     
  17. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,453
    Ratings:
    +6,755
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    O dear......Again.....??? [​IMG]

    In the Interlinear, John 1:11 reads like this....

    "In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho the God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

    Perhaps it is the word "theos" that should get more attention in this verse. What is the meaning of this word in Greek? Remembering that Greeks had many deities, there was no way to identify a "god" except by name. Collectively, they were called "the gods", but individually they had names. The word "theos" simply means "a divine mighty one" of no specific identity unless he/she could be named.

    Since the God of the Bible had become nameless, (thanks to Jewish superstition making God's name too sacred to utter, which was something Yahweh never commanded) there was no way to differentiate between the divine mighty person of The Sovereign Lord Yahweh and his only begotten son son, The Lord Jesus Christ (also a divine mighty one.) The only way to distinguish between these two "gods" was to use the definite article. "ho" or "the". By calling one "god" and the other "the god" we see the distinction made in this verse. Only one is referred to as "the God".

    Breaking it down, John 1:1 says that "the Word" or "Logos" (who came to earth as the man Jesus) was "with the God ( eimi pros · ho theos ) in the beginning". We first have to ask..."the beginning" of what? As an eternal being, God had no beginning, so this is obviously the beginning of creation.

    We then have the apostle Paul's confirmation in Colossians 1:15-16 that Jesus is...
    ."the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him." So Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" or as John wrote in Revelation 3:14.....Jesus is "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."

    So John 1:1 is not saying that Jesus (as the Logos) was "the God" but a divine mighty one, sent by his Father. Read it again and you will see that only one of these is "the God" and it isn't the Logos. This verse does not prove a trinity since there is no mention of the holy spirit.

    Further to this is John 1:18 which clearly states that
    "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." So again we see Jesus referred to as "theos" but in terms of "only begotten". Since Yahweh is not begotten, this is referring to a divine individual who was sent to teach us about God. Yahweh is his 'begetter", meaning his Father, or the one who caused his existence. The son is a creation of his Father, (the "firstborn" of many "sons") whom he still recognizes as his God even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)

    Even though many pre-Christian servants of Yahweh spoke about seeing God, none of them ever did in person. Yahweh often represented himself by means of an angel. Not a spirit creature, but in materialized human form or by means of dreams or visions. So John was right..."No man has seen God"


    John never wrote his account to prove a trinity because for the first three hundred years of Christianity, (like Judaism in the centuries before) there was no such thing as a trinity. Trinities of gods were only found in paganism.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    You've been deceived.....

     
    #17 Deeje, May 28, 2017
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Kelly of the Phoenix

    Kelly of the Phoenix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    3,067
    Ratings:
    +2,777
    Religion:
    "Post" Christian, likely Deist
    So other gods mentioned are also divine? Satan is called god of this world ... does that make him one?

    I consider John a heretic a bit too enamoured of Jesus to be of any objective use.

    Isn't text a "flesh" of oral language?

    It means he's never read the bible?

    John also, and that's okay of course, found himself in Jesus' bosom. However, that doesn't make John Jesus.

    You know, it's funny when God asks Job why he thinks anything of Creation since he wasn't there, and yet John makes up a bunch of silly philosophical crap and people are like OMG SO THOUGHT PROVOKING.

    From this site
    Athene -the bright-eyed 68, 105;
    Hermes - messenger 89; son of Zeus 131; Giant-killer 89; kindly 334; greatest of gods in his mind's subtlety 334; the strong one 335
    Achilles -swift-footed 53; godlike 53; shepherd of the people 273; son of Peleus 273; leader of men 132
    Odysseus Zeus' equal in his mind's resource 68; son of Laertes 122; resourceful 181; nimble-witted 93; famous spearman 273; godlike 89; sacker of cities 71; much-enduring 155; gallant 105; stalwart 92; loved of Zeus 193; famed 204; hardy 187; royal 189; great glory of the Achaians 194
    From this site
    One such example would be Naram Sin of Akkad who was the first divine king to be given the much used title ‘King of the Four Quarters of the Universe.’

    Djoser
    • ‘Divine of the Body.’
    Sahure
    • ‘He Who is Close to Re.’
    Mentuhotep (Mars)
    • ‘The War God Montu is Content.’

    And so on and so forth. In other words, people like cool-sounding nicknames and they prove basically zilch.

    No. I read statements from someone we assume is John.

    That doesn't follow. Many gods were reproduced asexually.
     
  19. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Ratings:
    +2,083
    Religion:
    Catholic
    If its the exegesis that concerns you I think you would have considered the entire Gospels and not the special circumstances of John. Texts where the implication is that the title God was not used for Jesus. Texts where the title was at best dubious. Texts where Jesus is clearly called God and then evaluate the evidence.
     
  20. MJFlores

    MJFlores Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,656
    Ratings:
    +415
    Religion:
    Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ)

    [​IMG]

    Dr. James White said:
    “I BELIEVE IN SOLA SCRIPTURA. Scripture is the sole, infallible rule of faith for the church. I do not accept any ‘revelations’ from God. But I ALSO BELIEVE IN TOTA SCRIPTURA. We must believe all the scripture teaches. We cannot pick and choose, we harmonize our beliefs with all of God’s revelation because all of it was given to us by the spirit of God.”

    But Dr. James White,
    YOUR TRINITY IS
    “NO SCRIPTURA”
    (Unscriptural)


    __________________

    In the South Dakota religious debate, Dr. James White posed himself as a person believing what is written in the Bible and only what is written in the Bible which he believes. However, never in the debate he read a verse from the Scriptures where the word “Trinity” is written, neither the word “Triune God”, and the phrase “One God in three persons.”

    Actually, trinitarian scholars admitted that the word “Trinity” and the “mystery of the Divine Trinity” cannot be found in the Bible. A trinitarian scholar, Dr. Joseph Pohle, admitted the following:

    upload_2017-5-28_23-8-20.jpeg
    It cannot therefore be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament.” (Pohle, Joseph, Ph.D., D.D.. The Divine Trinity, A Dogmatic Treatise, p. 20.)

    The reason of this admission is because the doctrine of the Trinity is not known before the advent of Christ according to another trinitarian theologian:

    upload_2017-5-28_23-10-12.jpeg
    “It is true that before the advent of Christ the Trinity of Persons was not known, not even to the inspired authors.” (Gratsch, Edward J. Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 50.)

    How about in the New Testament? Can we find the word “Trinity” in the New Testament? This is the admission of another trinitarian author:

    upload_2017-5-28_23-10-49.jpeg
    The word Trinity does not appear in the New Testament and the meanings of the words persons and nature, in the precise senses and which these words are used to bear the meassage of God, had to be carefully refined to bear that message rightly. But what the New Testament teaches is in truth captured with care and reverence in the exact statements of the early councils of the Church.” (Lawler, Ronald, Wuerl, Donald, and Lawler, Thomas Comerfod. The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, p. 177.)

    Indeed, the word “Trinity” cannot be found in the Bible because it was first used by Tertulian in the last decade of the second century only:

    upload_2017-5-28_23-12-2.jpeg
    The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, though used by Tertulian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the thelogy of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Part 3. J.D.Douglas. M.A., B.D., S.T.M., P.H.D. organizing editor. Leicester, England: Inter Varsity Press, 1980, p. 1597)

    Trinitarians clearly admit that the word "Trinity" and the formula ("that there are three persons in one God") cannot be found in the Bible. THUS, “TRINITY” IS TRULY UNSCRIPTURAL.

    So, upholding and defending a “No Scriptura” belief, Dr. James White, what happened to your “Sola Scriptura” and “Tota Scriptura”?
     
Loading...