• 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!

The Son of the Holy Trinity

Earthling

David Henson
In the Nicene Creed it says about the Son:
''by whom all things were made''.
Son is also the Word.
John says: ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ''
The Word is the Son, right?
Maybe the Son is the executive part of God?

John 1:1 (KJV) - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864: "and a god was the Word." The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1935: "the Logos was divine." A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Gottingen, Germany.

1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker, Wurzburg, Germany.

John 1:1 - In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God (Literally "was toward the God." Greek en pros ton Theon; Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed., Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London. the Hebrew, hayah eth ha Elohim), and the Word was a god (Greek, theos, in contrast with ton Theon, "the God," in the same sentence; Hebrew, welohim, "and god.")

The Greek word theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. John was saying that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" rather than that he was the God with whom he was.

There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. Where "a" or "an" is inserted "an appatition" or "a spirit" or "a liar" or "a prophet" or "a god."

In the article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said about John 1:1: "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

In other words Jesus was a god, which is completely in harmony with scripture. Jesus was prophetically called a mighty god (Hebrew El Gibbohr) at Isaiah 9:6.

John 1:14 - "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Jesus was the word, or spokesperson, of Jehovah God. He existed in heaven in spirit form before he came to earth. (John 3:13; 6:51; 17:5)

John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: "Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 aparkhes met emou este], viii. 58 prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi."

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858 . . . "

Before Abraham came into existence is the first person singular present indicative and so properly translated with the perfect indicative. So from the fourth/fifth century the Syriac edition translates John 8:58 as "before Abraham was, I have been." (A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.

From the fifth century the Curetonian Syriac Edition translates "before ever Abraham came to be, I was." (The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904)

The Syriac Pe****ta Edition, The Old Georgian Version, also from the fifth century and the Ethiopic Edition of the sixth century all do the same.

In an attempt to confuse Jesus as Jehovah some suggest that ego eimi is the same as the Hebrew expression ani hu, "I am he," which is used by God, but it is also used by man. (1 Chronicles 21:17)
Others try and use the Septuagint's reading of Exodus 3:14 which reads Ego eimi ho on meaning "I am The Being," or "I am The Existing One" which can't be sustained because the expression at Exodus 3:14 is different than John 8:58.

At Exodus 3:14 the Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be" is God's self designation. Leeser reads "I will be that I will be;" Rotherham reads "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Latin ego sum qui sum "I am Who I am." Ehyeh comes from a verb hayah which means to "become; prove to be" and at 3:14 is in the imperfect state, first person singular meaning "I shall become" or "I shall prove to be." It isn't a comment on God's self existence but a statement about what he intends to become towards others.

John 10:30-31 - "I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."
Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) wrote: "Since He said 'one' thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say 'one' person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection." - Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27.

What Havatian meant is that the word for "one" in the verse is in the neuter gender. So its actual meaning is "one thing." John 17:21 uses the exact same syntax. This would mean that if Jesus and the Father were one in as the same one in the same then those to whom Jesus spoke of at John 17:21 were God as well.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
In the Nicene Creed it says about the Son:
''by whom all things were made''.
Son is also the Word.
John says: ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ''
The Word is the Son, right?

Maybe the Son is the executive part of God?

Naw.

I believe in god (only one)
the father almighty
creator of heaven and earth (one creator)

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; (Same essense/nature as the creator)
through him all things were made (all things made in his sons name)

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

aka

I believe in one father, the creator
I believe in one son, same nature and beggotton from the creator
I believe in one holy spirit who comes from the father and son

I believe in the Church (body of people instituted by christ and his apostles)

I believe one baptism (forgiveness of sins through gods grace)
I believe one resurrection of the dead
and world (heaven) to come.

-

Its one god. Just there is a lot of from, through, ofs to express the relationship of the parties involved. Gotta love those preps!
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Generally speaking that isn't true. What actually happened was the Bible had it's teachings and then later pagan teachings began infiltrate those teachings. For example, the immortal soul, hell, the cross, the trinity, Easter and Christmas.
.
I think that remains a theory of some but hardly completely true. The teachings are still available in the Bible before infiltrations came.

Christmas, most likely, but not necessarily because of pagan teachings, but rather I think it grew more out of "If pagans are celebrating a tree, what if we use the tree to express the cross?" and through that effort, it became a beautiful tradition.

Angel on top of the tree... the angels cried " And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

The tree represented the cross,

The candles on the tree representing those who, because of Jesus, became little candles to light up the world.

And the child in a manger... well.... you know why.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
John 1:1 (KJV) - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

.
that portion was definitely a pagan infiltration. :D
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The tree represented the cross,
And since the spruce was the tree of choice, it also represents the Trinity (three corners-- see, I know some math at least).

The candles on the tree representing those who, because of Jesus, became little candles to light up the world.
And littlest angel got on top of the tree because she made Santa angry one Christmas Eve as Mrs. Claus was PMS-ing, the reindeer all had diarrhea, and the littlest angel asked Santa what she should do with the tree.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I think that remains a theory of some but hardly completely true. The teachings are still available in the Bible before infiltrations came.

Christmas, most likely, but not necessarily because of pagan teachings, but rather I think it grew more out of "If pagans are celebrating a tree, what if we use the tree to express the cross?" and through that effort, it became a beautiful tradition.

Angel on top of the tree... the angels cried " And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

The tree represented the cross,

The candles on the tree representing those who, because of Jesus, became little candles to light up the world.

And the child in a manger... well.... you know why.

Are you sure you are not trying to justify the traditions of men over the true teachings of God?

Consider the golden calf. What is going on there? They lost faith in Jehovah and Moses so they took an Egyptian god, or idol and tried to make it into a celebration of Jehovah. Same thing. What did Jehovah think of this? Not well. He wanted to destroy them all.

Consider Easter. In the days of Abraham in the alluvial plains of Babylon and Ur the spring celebrations of Astarte were in full swing. The people dressed their children in fine new clothes and sacrificed them by fire to the pagan goddess of fertility, Astarte. Urns have been discovered with the charred remains of children, with pictures of the egg and the rabbit, and the cross, Astarte's symbols of fertility. They would make cross buns, paint eggs and have orgies.

Do you honestly think Jesus is looking down on Easter Sunday thinking how adorable the watered down version of this 'Christian' adopted holiday is in his honor?

Or the star on the top of your pagan Christmas tree. Who sent the star which this represents and why? Satan sent the star to lead the astrologers to Herod and then to Jesus, who was living in a house by then, so that Herod could kill the two year old Jesus. It resulted in Herod killing all the babies 2 and younger in the town.

Is that a good thing in Jesus' eyes you think?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Are you sure you are not trying to justify the traditions of men over the true teachings of God?
Absolutely...

Consider the golden calf. What is going on there? They lost faith in Jehovah and Moses so they took an Egyptian god, or idol and tried to make it into a celebration of Jehovah. Same thing. What did Jehovah think of this? Not well. He wanted to destroy them all.

Consider Easter. In the days of Abraham in the alluvial plains of Babylon and Ur the spring celebrations of Astarte were in full swing. The people dressed their children in fine new clothes and sacrificed them by fire to the pagan goddess of fertility, Astarte. Urns have been discovered with the charred remains of children, with pictures of the egg and the rabbit, and the cross, Astarte's symbols of fertility. They would make cross buns, paint eggs and have orgies.

Do you honestly think Jesus is looking down on Easter Sunday thinking how adorable the watered down version of this 'Christian' adopted holiday is in his honor?

Or the star on the top of your pagan Christmas tree. Who sent the star which this represents and why? Satan sent the star to lead the astrologers to Herod and then to Jesus, who was living in a house by then, so that Herod could kill the two year old Jesus. It resulted in Herod killing all the babies 2 and younger in the town.

Is that a good thing in Jesus' eyes you think?

Take money for example. Money is neither evil nor good. However, we know that "the love of money" is evil yet to "give to the poor" is good. It is what you do with it that makes it evil or good. (the heart)

Take another example:

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.... ...20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

Food is neither good or bad (in its application here). However, it is the heart reason for eating that makes it good or bad.

You want to decorate a tree? decorate it all you want. There is nothing "impure" about decorating a tree. You want to use it to teach your children about Jesus? Teach them. God is honored that, as Jesus did, you used something people understand to share spiritual truths. You want to paint a coloring book to teach your children about Jesus? Color away, God is honored because your heart is right and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a tree or a coloring book.

HOWEVER,

Worship the tree? Your heart is wrong - it is sin.
You worship the picture you drew? Your heart is wrong - it is sin.

Again, HOWEVER, if for you having a Christmas tree is wrong and you do it as unto the Lord... then don't, you will violate your heart and it will be sin for you for you have taken a position unto the Lord.

If for you painting a picture with Jesus in it is "Painting something that is in Heaven" and for you it condemns your heart? Then it is sin for your heart said it was "as unto the Lord"

For Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

So, in your case, don't put up a tree and don't celebrate Easter.

However, remember, Rom 14:3 Those who eat must not look down on the ones who don't, and the ones who don't eat must not judge the ones who do, because God has accepted them.4 Who are you to judge someone else's servants?

It is all about the heart and faith.
 
Last edited:

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Christians say the trinity is monotheism then take paragraphs having to explain how it isn't polytheism.

Reminds me of a Thatcher quote, 'Being powerful us like telling people you're a lady. If you have to tell them you are, you're not.'
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Christians say the trinity is monotheism then take paragraphs having to explain how it isn't polytheism.

Reminds me of a Thatcher quote, 'Being powerful us like telling people you're a lady. If you have to tell them you are, you're not.'
Actually, I say it in two scriptures:

In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God.

Come near me and listen to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. “And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Isaiah 48:16,17).
 

Earthling

David Henson
Christians say the trinity is monotheism then take paragraphs having to explain how it isn't polytheism.

Reminds me of a Thatcher quote, 'Being powerful us like telling people you're a lady. If you have to tell them you are, you're not.'

The thing is, from my perspective, Christianity is neither monotheism or polytheism, it's henotheism. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually, I say it in two scriptures:

In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God.

Come near me and listen to this: “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. “And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Isaiah 48:16,17).
I'm not sure what these have to do with each other. One is talking about a Greek concept, the logos, or word, which was adopted by Christianity for some reason and has nothing to do with Judaism; the second is G-d saying He is The Holy One of Israel who directs and teaches.
 
Last edited:

Earthling

David Henson
Absolutely...

Take money for example. Money is neither evil nor good. However, we know that "the love of money" is evil yet to "give to the poor" is good. It is what you do with it that makes it evil or good. (the heart)

Take another example:

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.... ...20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

Food is neither good or bad (in its application here). However, it is the heart reason for eating that makes it good or bad.

You want to decorate a tree? decorate it all you want. There is nothing "impure" about decorating a tree. You want to use it to teach your children about Jesus? Teach them. God is honored that, as Jesus did, you used something people understand to share spiritual truths. You want to paint a coloring book to teach your children about Jesus? Color away, God is honored because your heart is right and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a tree or a coloring book.

HOWEVER,

Worship the tree? Your heart is wrong - it is sin.
You worship the picture you drew? Your heart is wrong - it is sin.

Again, HOWEVER, if for you having a Christmas tree is wrong and you do it as unto the Lord... then don't, you will violate your heart and it will be sin for you for you have taken a position unto the Lord.

If for you painting a picture with Jesus in it is "Painting something that is in Heaven" and for you it condemns your heart? Then it is sin for your heart said it was "as unto the Lord"

For Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

So, in your case, don't put up a tree and don't celebrate Easter.

However, remember, Rom 14:3 Those who eat must not look down on the ones who don't, and the ones who don't eat must not judge the ones who do, because God has accepted them.4 Who are you to judge someone else's servants?

It is all about the heart and faith.

It's funny. Three months ago I would have argued against this point until the cows come home, as they say, but a month or so ago on these forums I looked up the scripture you gave about eating meat that had been devoted to false gods and came to the same conclusion as you are.

I still think Christmas and Easter are really spiritually destructive Christian teachings, but I no longer want to judge others harshly for it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I'm not sure what these have to do with each other. One is talking about a Greek concept, the logos, or word, which was adopted by Christianity for some reason and has nothing to do with Judaism; the second is G-d saying He is The Holy One of Israel who directs and teaches.
Actually, John was Jewish, not Greek.

The second as the breakdown of the three; God - the Creator, God - the Redeemer, and God the Holy Spirit.

Two short sentences.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
John, or whoever wrote it, was influenced by Greek ideas and this is painfully obvious.
Hmmm... no.

John was Jesus' disciple and Pharisees were notorious "Get back to the original intent" and not "Let's follow the Greeks.

As I read it, it is quite obvious that he was 100% Hebrew, both in content and in purpose.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It's funny. Three months ago I would have argued against this point until the cows come home, as they say, but a month or so ago on these forums I looked up the scripture you gave about eating meat that had been devoted to false gods and came to the same conclusion as you are.

I still think Christmas and Easter are really spiritually destructive Christian teachings, but I no longer want to judge others harshly for it.
You are a great person!
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmmm... no.

John was Jesus' disciple and Pharisees were notorious "Get back to the original intent" and not "Let's follow the Greeks.

As I read it, it is quite obvious that he was 100% Hebrew, both in content and in purpose.
The Logos/Word is a Greek concept. Just own it. Whoever wrote the book also wrote it in Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic, which the Jewish scripture is written with. If John were truly thoroughly Jewish and Hebrew literate he would have written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek is not and was never considered a holy language and scripture was not written using it. Also, the book is basically one long polemic against Jews, so if it wanted to appeal to that group it wasn't exactly going about it well.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The Logos/Word is a Greek concept. Just own it. Whoever wrote the book also wrote it in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, which the Jewish scripture is written with. If John were truly thoroughly Jewish and Hebrew literate he would have written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek is not and was never considered a holy language and scripture was not written using it. Also, the book is basically one long polemic against Jews, so if it wanted to appeal to that group it wasn't exactly going about it well.
Greek was an international language. The Gospel wasn't just for the Jews... it was for the world. It has been completely translated into 670 languages. It didn't change on influence according to language.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Greek was an international language. The Gospel wasn't just for the Jews... it was for the world. It has been completely translated into 670 languages. It didn't change on influence according to language.
I sometimes get the feeling that arguing with Christians is akin to cats yowling at each other.

Your scripture capitalises on Greek philosophies, (logos, divine cannibalism, human deity), was written to Greeks, is a polemic against Jews, written in Greek.

There is nothing Jewish about your John.
 
Top