The problem I see here with Trinity is not just the word Trinity. It is the concept of 'incarnation' as opposed to 'Image' and 'Mirror'. This is exactly where Trinity deviates from original Biblical Teachings. Here I would like to get your attention to the usage of the word 'incarnation' in your post, which really comes from Trinity and not Bible.
When we place a Mirror in front of the Sun, its image appears in the Mirror, but that does not mean that the Sun has moved down from sky inside the Mirror. Likewise when it is said Jesus being the Mirror showing the image of God, it does not mean God has moved down inside the body of Jesus. In both case, it means that the Light of the Sun which symbolizes Knowledge, power, glory and all the attributes of God has 'appeared' in the Mirror.
In another Words Jesus is Mirror of God and Not His incarnation. The Word of God was revealed and reflected in this Mirror. That is the meaning of 'flesh became Word'. It means reflection in the Mirror, or 'Manifestation' of the Word of God in the Perfect Human Jesus, who is the 'image of the living God'. St. Basil also explains the commandments that Jesus received by " the reflexion of an object in a mirror"
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Therefore, saying that 'the word became flesh' is no different than to say 'the Mirror became the Sun' when the Mirror is placed in front of the Sun. But the Mirror by itself without the Sun can show no image and light, as Jesus said 'by myself I can do nothing'..... Therefore, since the Sun of Truth manifested in the Mirror of Christ, His Light was reflected as Word that were the cause of enlightening, hence "the Word became Flesh".
I'm sorry, but this strikes me as being a very weak argument, and grasping at straws. When the sun reflects upon the mirror, the mirror does NOT "become the sun." Now, I'm pretty crappy at science, and I only acquitted myself in physics, but I DO know enough about light and optics to tell you that a reflective surface does not become that which it reflects--it merely takes the light of that which it reflects and passes it on. It would be completely incorrect to point to a mirror and say "This mirror is the sun." It WOULD be correct to say that you can look at the Sun in a mirror or by a mirror or through a mirror or with a mirror, but it is completely wrong to say that the mirror itself would be the sun.
Sure, you could look at yourself in the mirror and say that you are looking at yourself. But does the fact that you are reflected in the mirror make the mirror you? No. You are looking at the light being absorbed and given off by your body, that reflects in the mirror, and bounces back to your eyes.
"The Word reflecting Himself upon flesh" is completely different than "the Word becoming flesh". That is something more akin to Nestorianism, which is wholly unsupported by the Scriptures. You would have to take far too many liberties with the Biblical text to even begin to contort John 1 into supporting such a position. If "the Word became flesh" as the Scriptures say, then this can only mean that the Word was born as a person and lived as a human. If the Bible were to have said "the Word came upon flesh," or "the Word reflected Himself upon flesh" or "the Word spoke to flesh", then your interpretation would have some merit. But, the Bible doesn't say any of those things. Instead, it says the Word "became flesh."
Here is the word for "became" in Greek:
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 2a) of events 3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage 3a) of men appearing in public 4) to be made, finished 4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought 5) to become, be made
And before you latch onto definition number 3, consider that the US "became" or "appeared in history/came upon the stage/arose/" in 1776. The word for "became" in Greek ultimately refers you to being something which previously you were not, or the coming into existence of something new. With the context of the Word, which has already been described as being "in the beginning" with God and before all creation, it is clear that the former sense is intended.
The word used for "flesh" in Greek here is
sarx, which is one of the harshest-sounding words possible to use for the body. Here's a list of meanings:
σάρξ,
n \{sarx}
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts 2) the body 2a) the body of a man 2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 2b1) born of natural generation 2c) the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" 2c1) without any suggestion of depravity 2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering 3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast 4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
So, the Word "becoming flesh" means exactly that: The Word went from being bodiless, to taking on a body and dwelling among us as a man. He did not reflect Himself upon the person of Jesus as you say, therefore making Jesus in some merely metaphorical sense God, but rather, the Word Himself
became flesh and was born as Jesus of Nazareth
--the Word of God and Jesus Christ
are one and the same individual, and one and the same person. And there is nothing you can possibly do to make John 1:14 read any other way.
Again, considering 'image of God', versus 'God' Himself. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. I do whatever and however the Father wills. This is just like Mirroring the Will of God.
The Father is greater than the Son in that the Father begets the Son. Both the Father and the Son share the same divine Will as a part of their Divine Nature.
It is not really hypothetical. I did not say John was Elijah 'incarnated'. John was the return of Elijah in a spiritual sense. Meaning the Spirit of Elijah and John were identical in terms of all qualities and power, and Jesus and Scriptures confirm that.
But also keep in mind that Elisha, who was Elijah's disciple and companion, received "a double portion" of Elijah's spirit according to the Scriptures.
When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha said, “Please, let a
double portion of your spirit be upon me.”
This is later granted to Elisha when he sees Elijah being taken up to Heaven. It's not as if John and Elijah had the same soul or anything like that, but that they were both granted the same power and spirit, even as Elisha and Elijah were.
To be fair Both Moses and Jesus are referred to as 'Lord' or 'god' in the scriptures. Both has manifested the 'sun' according to scriptures, and both did and said things that God asked them to do or to say.
Except, Moses is never identified or compared with God, except in one place, and even that one place is Moses explicitly making it a simile to explain the teamwork dynamic that Moses and Aaron would have in talking to Pharaoh. You cannot even come close to comparing Moses' case with Christ's, as Christ is called God by His own disciples, and even calls Himself God, and expresses His unity with God. Moses identified himself as God's prophet and messenger, but never anything more.
Yes Buddha means the enlightened one, but that is just a title. It is different than I get enlightened, then I be called a Buddha too. Messiah means 'anointed one', but this term alone does not show All qualities and power He had.
Yes, "Messiah" indicates the role that He would have in being the Savior of Israel, but there's so much more to Christ than that.
